fliifcftMli
_ ift
ADVERTISEMENT.
On issuing the twelfth and concluding number of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain to
the Subscribers and the Public, Mrs. Bray is desirous to explain the reasons which have constrained
her to publish the Introduction and Historical Descriptions, written by her brother, Alfred John
Kempe, Esq. F.S.A. in a separate form, and to charge for it accordingly.
Since Mr. Charles Stothard’s decease, who not only executed the drawings but the etchings
from them himself, the work has been placed in a very different position, and Mrs. Bray has been
obliged to employ artists, at a very heavy expense, for the purpose of furnishing the plates, twelve
in each number.
The completion of the Monumental Effigies in a manner respectful to her late husband's great
talents, and satisfactory to the Subscribers, has ever been her primary object ; and, long as the
interval may seem that has elapsed between Mr. Stothard's decease and such completion, the un¬
dertaking has never stood still.
With respect to the Head-plates for the different Monuments, Mr. Stothard, had he survived,
would no doubt have added many more to those which he published ; but, except in the instance of
the tomb of Sir Robert de Shurland, he left behind him no materials available to pursue his
intention. His practice in drawing the elevation of Monuments for the Head-plates, was merely
to take the just admeasurements, and sketch the mouldings and architectural parts, reserving the
putting such materials together for a future opportunity. To these drawings, made only for his
own information, there were not any memoranda in writing appended, indicating to what tombs
they should be applied : consequently (the overwhelming increase of expense out of the question)
it became impossible to appropriate them to the purpose for which they were made. It is, however,
fortunate that in the head-plates will be found distinct examples of the variation in altar-tombs,
from the thirteenth to the early part of the fifteenth century.
The Introduction and Historical Descriptions for the Monumental Effigies, will be found to con¬
sist of upwards of one hundred and twenty pages of letter press, elegantly printed, and embellished
with a Frontispiece, etched by the late Mr. Charles Stothard, after an original design by his father ;
his Portrait, by Chalon, engraved by Cooper ; a View of the inscribed Coffin-lid of Matilda, Queen
of William the Conqueror ; the elevation of the Tomb of Sir Robert Shurland, at Minster Church,
Sheppy; and various wood-hlocks, not here particularized.
The Price of the Introduction and Historical Descriptions will, therefore, be the same as that
of the Numbers containing the Effigies ; — Large Paper, j£l. 15s. ; Small Paper, £\. 5s.
A very limited edition of the work has been struck off.
DIRECTIONS TO TIIE BINDER.
In arranging the Plates of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain in Chronological Order, the
Binder must refer to the Table, which indicates the Number in which each plate was published.
It is recommended that the Plates should be interleaved with the Letter-press and Historical
Descriptions. A Volume, made up according to this arrangement, will be deposited for the
inspection of Subscribers and the public, with the publishers, Messrs. Arch.
1 1 1 he Letter-press Descriptions are mostly numbered at the bottom. Mr. Slot hard
himself edited ten leaves, containing accounts of Henry the Second, Monuments in the Temple
Church, Bcrengaria Queen of Richard the First, William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, Edward
the Black Prince, Sir Guy Bryan, William Fit*. Alan, Earl of Arundel, and Sir John Peche. The
pages of these leaves are not numbered, but they are allowed for, with the exception of the
three leaves describing the tomb of Edward the Black Prince, in the running numbers of Mr.
Kempcs Letter-press, and their places, with the aid of the List of the Effigies, will be thus
readily found.
Page 3. 1. 6, for " Marmonstier," read " Mannoustier."
Page 7. Under account of Eleanor de Guienne, omitted at the end of the last line:
" Details. Plate I. l. Pattern on the gown. 2. Painting on the girdle ’’
Note, p. 36, for " Anglezia," read “Angleria, or Anghiera."
INTRODUCTION.
Originality of design may be justly claimed for the Author of “ The Monumental Effigies of Great
Britain for, blending at once the character of the Artist and the Antiquary, he has aimed at show¬
ing the progress of sculptural science in the memorials extant for the illustrious dead, regarding them,
not simply as monumental records, but also as the most efficient means of bringing before our view
the characters of English History, in their “habits as they lived.”
A severe course of study, in those only schools for correct drawing, the Antique Greek sculptures
and the living model, a firm and delicate hand, a most discriminating taste, and an undeviating prin¬
ciple of truth in all he drew, peculiarly fitted him for the undertaking. He seized and transferred to
his paper every good point in the original subjects before him. He exaggerated nothing; he let no
beauty escape him. The proof of these assertions will be found in the Plates of this work ; and there
needs little apology in having said thus much in praise of its Author, on its being now presented to
the public in a complete form. He has been some years beyond the shafts of envy or malevolence,
and his own frank but modestly-expressed prediction will be accomplished, that sooner or later “ his
labours will find their value.” * Grateful, indeed, would it have been to those who now survive him,
if he had himself lived fully to reap the applause due to his labours, and if the pen which has
ventured to complete the letter-press of the Monumental Effigies had been spared the task. That
task has, however, been executed with a feeling of zeal inspired by the subject, and of reverence for
the talents and worth of the departed Author. A tribute imperfect, inadequate, but sincere,
" Hnnc saltern accumulem ilonis et fungar inani
Munere ” -
Mr. Charles Stothard had proceeded as far as the Ninth Number of his Work, when his honour¬
able career was arrested by the mysterious decree of Providence. His widow, now the wife of the
Rev. Edward Atkyns Bray, has, with the praiseworthy approbation of her husband, neglected, since
that event, no effort to do justice to Mr. Stothard’s memory, and spared no expense within her means
to give completion to his great undertaking.
Mr. Charles Stothard left behind him some materials towards the Introduction to his work, which
are interspersed in the Memoir of his Life, before cited. These will be duly respected here.
The following sketch of a prefatory Essay was found among his papers :
• « I do not conceive I have done more than any one else might, with patience and attention ; yet still I cannot be
deceived as to what must be the product. I am well convinced that, some time or other, my labours will find their
value.” Original Letter, in Memoirs and Correspondence of Charles Alfred Stothard, F.S.A. by Mrs. Charles Stothard
(now Mrs. Dray), Author of Letters during a Tour through Normandy, &c. Longman and Co. 1823, p. 97 ■
b
2 INTRODUCTION.
“ It is one ol tlie most striking features of the human mind, that it invariably embodies and gives
form to description, more or less strong and perfect, as the mind is gifted and cultivated; and it is
from this property in man that the study of antiquity, as connected with and illustrative of history, is
the source of some of the greatest intellectual pleasures we are capable of enjoying. By these means
we live in other ages than our own, and become nearly as well acquainted with them. In some mea¬
sure we arrest the fleeting steps of Time, 'and again review those things his arm has passed over,
and subdued, but not destroyed. The researches of the Antiquary are worthless if they do not im¬
part to us this power, or give us other advantages; it is not to admire any thing for its age or rust
that constitutes the interest of the object, but as it is conducive to our knowledge, the enlargement of
human intellect, and general improvement.
“ Among the various antiquities which England possesses, there are none so immediately illustrative
of our history as its national monuments, which abound in our cathedrals and churches. Considered
with an attention to all they are capable of embracing, there is no subject can furnish more various or
original information. Scattered in all directions, and very remote from each other, they have hitherto
possessed but a negative value; it is therefore both useful and interesting, by means of the pencil, to
bring them together in the form of a collection; and in some degree, it is to be hoped, such an
attempt may give a check to, and serve to counteract, die unfeeling ignorance so prevalent hi the
taste displayed for beautifying and whitewashing these vestiges; a custom which has already destroyed
so much, and still continues to make the most dreadful ravages among these records of past ages.
The destruction by time and accident bears, in comparison with this, but small proportion, although
it adds to the claim these subjects have upon our attention, to save them from total oblivion.
“ ^le Present work was undertaken from a conviction that nothing effectual towards this last-men¬
tioned purpose had been accomplished, as well as to alford an interesting illustration of history, the
progiess of art and sculpture, with the changes in costume of different periods in this country.
“ ^ the progress of sculpture I shall presently speak at large; and of costume I may here observe,
that we have many proofs that the various dresses which present themselves to us on our Monumental
Effigies, were not at all introduced by any inventive or whimsical fancies in the sculptor. Several
agree with our MS. illuminations of their various periods; and we never observe any thing, however
singular, but we are sure to detect it repeated in the same age on some other subject. It may be
also remarked, that, with very few exceptions, these effigies present the only existing portraits we
possess, of our Kings, our Princes, and the Heroes of ages famed for chivalry and arms. Thus con¬
sidered, they must be extremely valuable, and furnish us not only with well-defined ideas of celebrated
personages, but make us acquainted with the customs and habits of the time. To history they give a
body and a substance, by placing before us those things which language is deficient in describing.
“ Comparatively speaking, we shall be able to ascertain less in the few centuries into which our
inquiries lead us, than in the ages of the Greeks and Romans. The reason, I think, is obvious: as
the Arts in this country had their birth in religion, and were confined to the adornment of religious
edifices, Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture were no where to be found but under die Church,
supported by the munificence of Princes, and the vast revenues arising from Monasteries so richly
and splendidly endowed. How different was the spirit which animated the Pagan and the Gothic
ages ! \\ ith the Greeks and Romans, not only the temples of their gods, but their cities, and even
their private houses, were adorned with works of art. Amongst our monkish historians, we neither
find a Diodorus Siculus nor a Strabo. Had the subject of the Gothic Arts been more political, his¬
tory would have been imperfect, if it omitted accounts of things so intimately connected with it. I
intended, on the commencement of my work, to have given a history of the rise of Arts in this coun¬
try, as far as they were connected with sculpture; but, on looking further into the subject, I found
materials too few; and those of such a nature, that the time required to make researches in this parti-
INTRODUCTION.
cular would be enough of itself, without thinking of giving specimens, Sic. * * * * * The
earliest tombs of this country, since the Conqnest, appear to us in the shape of the lid of the coffin.
These seem to have been placed even with the pavement, having, in some instances, foliage fancifully
sculptured upon them, and in others crosses, with various fanciful devices, but most generally with
such as denoted the profession of the deceased. These were carved in exceeding low relief. Tombs
of this description are extremely numerous. As examples, a few will be selected of the most curious.
From some interesting specimens we have prior to the Conquest, we may gather that such a mode
was very early practised in this country.”
In pursuance of this intention, Mr. Stothard made a drawing of the lid of the stone-coffin of Queen
Matilda, at Caen, an etching from which is here inserted. We have in this drawing a careful fac¬
simile of an inscription in the Roman character, as employed in the Gothic age. The chief varia¬
tions are to be found in the form of the C, E, H, G, Q, and Z ; and of the three first letters, the
pure Roman form is used as well as the other. It may, indeed, be suspected that the alteration
began with the Romans of the Lower Empire themselves. The upright strokes of letters in this
inscription are sometimes blended together, so as to make one upright stroke serve for two letters, as
the last stroke of an N for the fu st of a D ; in one instance, a single letter is made to end and begin
a word, as QUAMULTIS for QUAM MULTIS; small letters are put within larger, &c. ; prac¬
tices not unknown, we believe, to the Romans, in their inscriptions, when they wished to contract
them within a limited space. A curious example of this kind, in the inscription on the tomb of
the Amdo-Saxon Princess Editha, at Magdeburg, was communicated in 1830 by the Rev. Edward
Kerrich, F.S.A. to the Gentleman’s Magazine.* The round uncial character, so called either from
its size or its initial station in MSS. came into use on tombs in the thirteenth century, and was super¬
seded by the black-letter towards the close of the fourteenth.
Matilda was die daughter of Baldwin Earl of Flanders, was married to William Duke of Normandy
before his successful invasion of England, and was crowned as his Queen Consort of that Country in
1068. She died in 1083, and was buried in the church of the Holy Trinity, founded by herself at
Caen. The following is the epitaph inscribed on her coffin-lid :
“EGREGIE PULCIIRI TEGIT HEC STRUCTURA SEPULCHRI
MORIBUS INSIGNE' GERMEN REGALE MATHILDEM
DUX FLANDR1TA PATER HUIC EXTITIT ADALA MATER
francor’ GENTIS ROTBEUTI FILIA REGIS
ET SOROR HENR1C1 REGALIS EDE POTITI
REG1 MAGNIFICO WILLELMO JUNCTA MARITO
PRESENTEM SEDEM PRESENTE' FECIT ET EDEM
TAM MULTIS TERRIS QUAMULTIS REBUS HONESTIS
A SE D IT AT AM SE PROCURAXTE DICATAM
HEC CONSOLATRIX INOPUM PIETATIS AMATRIX
GAZIS DISPERSIS PAUPER SIBI DIVES EGENIS
SIC INFINITE PETIIT CONSORTIA VITE
IN PRIMA MENSIS POST PRIMAM LUCE NOVEMBRIS.” \
The reader will be amused by comparing this version with the inscription in the etching, and
observing the expedients which were resorted to in order to bring it within the limits of the stone.
To Mr. Stothard’s observations on stone-coffins may be added, that they were the receptacles of
* Gent3. Mag. vol. C. i. 195. She was the daughter of King Edmund,
t Mrs. Charles Stothard's Tour in Normandy, &c. p. 101.
\mk\w/z<u
INTRODUCTION.
of the distinguished dead from a very early period.' A Roman stone-coffin of very massive construc¬
tion, having a coped lid,+ was laid open at the excavations made in 1828 at a spot near Csesar’s
Camp, Holwood Hill, in Kent, where are still visible the remains of a small temple, or sacellum, in con¬
nection with Roman sepulchres. This coffin was deposited in a grave cut eight feet deep in the chalk
rock. The coped form of the lid was particularly well calculated for carrying off the moisture from
the interior, whether above or under ground. Accordingly, we find in the coffin in which the body of
William Rufus was deposited, the same form continued which had been adopted by the half-civilized
people of Europe, like the details of their architecture, on the Roman model. The coped shape of
the lid was no doubt very early varied by the flat, (particularly when the defunct was deposited under
the roof of a sacred building, where no moisture was to be repelled^ and the coffin-lid could be thus
reduced to the level of the floor,) but it remains one mark of the antiquity of sepulchral chests in the
. We resume Mr. Stothard’s prefator;
are rarely to he met with in England before the middle of the thirteenth century : a cir¬
cumstance not to be attributed to the causes generally assigned, which were, either that they had been
destroyed, or that the unsettled stale of the times did not oiler sufficient encouragement for erecting
such memorials : but it rather appears not to have been before become the practice to repre;
deceased. If it had been otherwise, for what reason do we not find effigies over the tombs of William
the Conqueror, his son, William Rufus, or his daughter, Gundrada. Yet, after a time, it is an
undoubted fact tliut the alteration introduced by the Normans was the addition of the figure of the
person deceased ; and then it appeared not in the bold style of the later Norman monuments, but
partaking of the character and low relief of those tombs it was about to supersede. Of these, and of
the few, perhaps, that were executed, Roger Bishop of Sarum is the only specimen in good p
tion. The effigy of Joceline Bishop of Salisbury is infinitely more relieved than that of Roger Bishop
of the same see, which is far from possessing the bold relief we afterwards observe, in the figure of Kin<r
John. Our sculptors, having arrived at this stage of improvement, continued to execute their effigies
after the same manner, (during which we observe the coffin-shaped slab giving way to a more regular
figure,) till the beginning of the fourteendi century; and it was then that it entirely disappeared, and
that the effigy is represented in full relief, lo support such a conjecture is no difficult task " * * *
as by the appearance of King John’s remains, and other instances. “Withburg, a sister to Queen
Etheldreda, Abbess of Ely, when examined, several centuries after her interment, bj order ofthe Abbot
Richard, was found with a cushion of silk beneath her head, Sec. It is not unlikely that it was usual to
bury the dead in this manner; whence arose the custom of sculpturing our effigies with cushions under
the head. Henry the Second’s effigy, at Fontevraud, is thus represented, and agrees with the account
given by Matthew Paris, and other writers, of that monarch’s appearance after death, when placed
upon the bier; and Berenguria, Queen of Richard the First, is seen in her effigy holding a book, the
cover embossed with a second representation of herself (which agrees with the effigy), lying upon a
bier, with waxen tapers burning in candlesticks on either side. Yet it is probable the custom of
burying the dead in the dress which marked the habits of their lives was not universal; for, had it
been so, we should find knights in their armour, } which would have explained points that i
bably, will never be clearly understood.
“ It is true that a very voluminous work of this kind has been published by the late Mr. Goi
• Cremari apud Romanos non fuit veteris instituti : terra condebantur j et pustquam longinquis bellis obrutos e
cognovere cst institutum, et tamen multa; fainiliic priscos servavere ritus. Manutius de leg. Rom.
f See Arclueologia, Vol. XXII. Plate xvxii. p. 3-1 S.
I The value of armour in an iron age, when the s
legacy.” may nccount for the omission of this practice.
descended from s
INTRODUCTION. 5
which was undertaken with the best intentions ; but, whatever information we may receive from his
writings, the delineating part is so extremely incorrect, and full of errors, that at a future period,
when the originals no longer exist, it will be impossible to form any correct idea of what they really
were. It may, perhaps, be thought unjust that I should enter so little into the merits of a work
which has challenged considerable notice; but delicacy, united to the wish of depreciating as little as
possible the well-intentioned endeavours of another, would altogether make me silent, did I not feel
that, in justice to myself, and as the present work is situated, something must be said, or the errors*
of Mr. Gough might at a future period be the means of injuring an attempt, which differs from his
on account of its very accuracy. ****** Had Mr. Gough been draughtsman sufficient to have
executed his own drawings, he might have avoided the innumerable mistakes which, from circum¬
stances, and the nature of the subject, must unavoidably have arisen. He could not transfer that
enthusiasm which he himself felt to the persons he employed, to enable them to overcome such diffi¬
culties. Of what nature these were, and how they acted upon interested people, can be easily shown.
There are innumerable instances where the effigies are covered with plaster and whitewash, so as to
conceal, not only the true form, but the ornaments upon it. Such disfigurement cannot be removed
by the unfeeling hand of a labourer; and can it be supposed that a mere draughtsman, employed
upon a work of which he is not the proprietor, will take upon himself the disagreeable and unprofitable
task of clearing the surface of a subject, which his employer will probably never see or examine ?
For it is remarkable that the most curious specimens I have found, and given in my work, presented,
at first sight, nothing which could excite the least interest, till, with infinite trouble, lime, and labour,
I disincumbered them of their whitewash, plaster, and house-painting cases, when the figures, dresses,
and ornaments, frequently came forth in a state sufficiently clear and perfect to be entirely made
out.”
The military costume, from the military character of the Middle Ages, necessarily forms a most
prominent feature in the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain. The rent of the tenant in capite
was military service; and every great landholder, therefore, became a knight. The mail and the
plate, in modern days, have been stripped from under the surcoat, or “ cote armure,” of our Gentry,
but they still retain the distinctive emblazonments with which the surcoat was wrought, as the badge
of their noble descent, and thus have perpetuated the pride of chivalry; not, indeed, speaking in a
limited sense, reprehensible, for, when associated, as it always assumed to be, with religion, it leads
to actions “ Sans peur et sans reproche.”
Ancient armour may be classed under three distinct periods. In the first, the outward defence of
the body was chiefly composed of mail, (to apply that as a general term for armour formed of
minute pieces, and not strictly with a view to its derivation) ; that mail was either of small plates of
metal, like fish scales, of square or lozenge-shaped plates, or mascles, or of rings, which, perhaps, were
not at first interlinked and rivetted together, but sewn down upon quilted cloth. Examples of all
these will be seen by reference to the prints of the Bayeux Tapesty, published by the Society of Anti¬
quaries of London, after Mr. Charles Stothard’s original drawings.
With this defensive clothing for the body was worn a conical steel cap with a nasal, and a long
kite-shaped shield. Pot-shaped helmets, flat at the top, and spherical chapelles-de-fer, were also
amon" the early defences for the head. These were sometimes worn under the hood of the hauberk ;
which will account for the forms that the chain-mail armour in some instances assumes, on figures
represented in our effigies and seals.
In the second period, the mail was externally strengthened about the arms and legs with plates of
* It will be observed that Mr. Stothard speaks, all through these remarks, of the errors which arose from the misre-
sentations of the subjects by Mr. Gough's draughtsmen. Nothing could be further from his mind than any envious
motive, or to depreciate the zeal, research, and learning displayed by Mr. Gough’s undertaking.
6 INTRODUCTION.
iron. A helmet covering the head and face was introduced, or a moveable ventaille, or baviere, was
added, for the same purpose, to the scull-cap.
The third period inclosed the body from head to foot in plate of steel, and the chain-mail only
makes its appearance at the aisse/les, or armpit joints of the armour, either its gussets, or worn under¬
neath, as a haubergeon, or lighter shirt of mail.* 'Die carnail, or gorget of mail, so called from its
being attached by a lace to the basinet, or cap, was, on account of the pliability which it afforded to
the motion ol the neck, at first retained, but was ultimately displaced by a gorget of plate. To the
breastplate the protuberant form of a pigeon’s breast was given, particularly well calculated to glance
off the thrust of a spear, and to prevent the body from being injured by blows causing deep indentations
in the armour. I lie term hauberk seems to have been used either for the corselet, or body-armour of
mail or of plate. Chaucer thus describes the armour of a knight, in his ‘ Rhime of Sir Thopas:’
' He did on next his white lere
Of cloth of lake full fine and clere,
A breehc, and eke a sherte.
And next his sherte an hakalon.
And ovir that an habergeon
For percing of his herte ;
And over that a fine huuberke
Was all ywrought of Jewis werkc ;
Full strong it was of plate.
And ovir that his cotc-armure.
As white as is the lilly-flourc,
tn which he would debate.
His shelde was all of gold so redde
And thereon was a boris hedde ;
A carboncle beside.
His swordis shethc of ivory ;
His helm of laton bright ;
* In Dr. Meyrick’s fine collection of ancient arms and armour, we see a figure wearing the habergeon of mail over the
laiuerk of plate. I his does not appear to accord with the arrangement of the harness on Chaucer's knight ; but both
modes were no doubt adopted, according to the pleasure of the wearer.
+ Cuir boudli was extensively used in armour. The corselet, or body-armour, superadded to the hauberk was at
first composed of it. and in the term cuirass we have etymological record that it was so employed ; and plastron implies
a defence of leather sitting us close to the breast as a plaister. The figure of John of Eltham may be considered to
aflord a good example of plate and leather-armour intermixed. Du Cange, in his Notes on Joinville, cites a very curious
inventory, of t he armour necessary for a knight, which will be found to corroborate the above remarks :
" Preincrement, un harnois de jambes covert de cuir comme a csguillettes, ou long de la gamhe jusques au genouil et
deux attaches large pour son barrucir (breeches), et souleres values fqu. velours •) attaches au grues (greaves)
Item' Cais“* et pouHuins (knee-plates) de cuir. armoier de Varcnnes, des armes au chevalier.
" Item, un chausse de mnilles par-dessus le harnois de jambes, attache'e au braier, comme dit ost par-dessus les misses
this was perhaps, the gipon, jupon, or little petticoat of mail, . et uns esperons dorez qui sont attache* a une cordelette
“‘our de ,a jambe, afin que la molette (rowel) ne tourne dessous le pied.
T" “ '■ '”*■ * ““ ”*
Cl un seuroiiere (sou., cervelliere or camafl) sur le pis (breast) avant.
i. IT. ITT*,* "* k lmk °r r°r ,te « j* »- ™» d. 1. ,ur
- - rxJrr, tjeszszt *" " - - •*- • — —
.1.^™'^"“"“ d< '* <'1"- to th, t»™. tt.
INTRODUCTION.
His sadell was of ruell bone;*
His bridle as the sunne yshone.
Or as the moone ylight ;
His spere was of the line cypres.
That bodeth warre, and nothing pece.
The hedde full sharpe igrounde.’,-t'
Towards the latter end of the fifteenth century, the surcoat appears to have been often laid aside
for the purpose of exhibiting the effulgence of the polished steel. The armour then was elaborately
fluted and channelled; and lastly engraved with various ornaments, legends, and devices. A kind of
armour of German manufacture was, we believe, at this period much esteemed, which went under the
general name of “ Almayne Rivett.” £
On the subject of plate and mail armour, Mr. Stothard himself makes the following remarks, in a
letter addressed to that eminent antiquary, the late Rev. Thomas Kerrich : “It is, I believe, a most
difficult thing to say when plate-armour was first introduced, because no representations, however
well executed, can tell us of what was worn out of sight, and inventories of armour, as well as notices
of writers on the subject, are not common ; the only things by which we can gain information. Daniel, in
his c Military Discipline of France,’ cites a poet who describes a combat between William de Barres
and Richard Cceur de Lion (then Earl of Poitou), in which he says, that they met so fiercely that their
lances pierced through each other’s coat of mail and gambeson, but were resisted by a plate of
wrought-iron worn beneath. This is a very solitary piece of information; and the poet cited (whose
name, I believe, is not mentioned) might not have been contemporary with the event described, and
of course gave the custom of his own time. It however strikes me, that plate was at all times partially
used. We find in die reign of Henry the Third pieces of plate on the elbows and knees. I have a
drawing from a figure about the time of Edward the First, in mail, with gauntlets of plate ; and I
strongly suspect that a steel cap was worn under the mail oftener than we imagine. How can we
otherwise account for the form in the mail chaperon of William Longespee ? Would not the top of
the head be round instead of flat, if something were not interposed to give it this form? And how
ill calculated to receive a blow, supposing nothing but the mail and linen coif interposed. See die
effigy in No. 8. of my work, from Hitehendon church :§ where a piece of mail appears cut out, does it
not seem that there is a cap beneath the mail ?
" Item, un heaume et le tymbrc (crest), tel comme il voudra.
" Item, deux chains a attachier a la poitrine de la cuirie, une pour 1'epee, 1’autrepour le baston, en deux vigeres, pour
le heaume attachcr. (Two chains ; one to fasten the sword to the breast of the cuirass, another having some con¬
trivance of a stick to attach the helmet in the same way.)
* Ruell-bonej bone riule, or stained with divers colours.
f The following passage of Froissart will afford an idea of the power of a sharp-ground lance : " Among the Cambre-
sians was a young squire from Gascony, called William Marchant, who came to the field of battle mounted on a good
steed, his shield hanging to his neck, his lance in its rest, completely armed, and spurring on to the combat. When
Sir Giles Manny saw him approach, he spurred on to meet him most vigorously, and they met, lance in hand, without
fear of each other. Sir Giles had his shield pierced through, as well as all the armour near his heart, and the iron passed
quite through his body." — Johnes’s Translation. Svo, vol. I. p. 169.
; The term, therefore, we think has been used in too limited a sense, in describing the armour of Sir John Pechy, or
Peche. A passage in Hall’s Chronicle shows that it was applicable to the whole suit of armour. "The King
(Henry VIII.) was received into a bote covered with arras, and so was set on londe. He was appareillcd in Almayne
Ryvet, crested, and his vanbrace of the same, and on his head a chapeau montabyn, with a rich coronal ; ye folde of the
chapeau was lined with crymsen satcn, and on it a rich brooch, with the image of Sainct George. Over his Rivet! he
had a garment of white cloth of gold, with a red crosse, and so he was received with procession." — Hall's Chronicle,
re-print, p. 538.
§ The effigy of Richard Wellesburne de Montfort.
8 INTRODUCTION.
‘•'But, to dwell longer on tins head, plate-armour appears, from our paintings in MSS. and monu¬
ments, not to have gained any ground till the fifth or sixth of Edward the Third. John of Eltham,
and the Knight ut I field, with Sir John Dabernoun, are the first specimens. Yet to show how care¬
ful we should be on this point, we find, in an account taken 1313, the sixth of Edward II. of the
armour which belonged to Piers Gaveston, the following items : ‘ A pair of plates (these covered the
body, and most probably were the back and breast plate), rivetted and garnished with silver, with
four chains of silver, (see for chains the effigy of the Blanchfront,) covered with red velvet, besanted
with gold. Two pair ofjambers (armour for the legs) ot iron, old and new; two coats of velvet, to
cover die plates.’ All the monumental figures 1 ever saw, of the time of Edward the Second,
have been in mail, as far as I could judge; so that you see I am in some difficulty. I am not sur¬
prised that mail was not so much worn after the introduction of plate; considering how the body
then became loaded, it was necessary to get rid of something. On the Knight at Ilield, and Sir John
Dabernoun,* we may see first the diick quilled gambeson, over which is the haubergeou ol mail, hav¬
ing above that what I take to be the aqueton. If there was any plate on the body, it was hidden by
the surcoat, which went over all ; but there is reason to suspect there was : for, iu the profile of the
Ash Church Effigy, we see between the lacings of the surcoat that the body is covered with narrow
plates. After the introduction of plate-armour the gambeson first disappears ; which was followed
by the aqueton. The aqueton is seen without the gambeson in Sir Oliver Ingham: it is blue,
with gold studs or points.
“ Before the general introduction of plate-armour, men seem to have been pretty well loaded ; but,
as most excesses cure themselves, it became necessary to get riil of something. The hauberk was
succeeded by the haubergeou, which was shorter: see the Knight at Tewkesbury. Before the end of
the fourteenth century, 1 believe, the mail chausses, or stockings, disappeared from our own monu¬
ments. This is difficult to ascertain, because the joints (the only places where the chausses might be
seen) were always defended by pieces of mail, called, in some instances, gaussets (gussets).
“It does not seem as if the Black Prince hud a steel bark preu, yet I apprehend the lower division
of his body is in plate. Perhaps he wears the piece of armour called the pance.f I am inclined to
think so from John Lord Montacute’s effigy, where there is a contrivance to give more action, and
defend the joints of the body-armour ; which would be unnecessary if either the upper or lower por¬
tions were not of plate, or something similar. You perhaps know that there was a substitute for
plate, much in fashion at this period, called cuir buui/li/, or leather boiled and moulded into any
form ; hard enough, when dry, to resist a sword.
“ I know nothing more difficult than to distinguish the plates under the surcoat; we must seek
information on this point from other sources. The singular appearance on monuments of the earliest
sort of mail, 1 think to be owing to its having been sewed on cloth in particular directions, or else a
different mode of representing a complete body. If you take a steel purse, and pull it crossways, die
rings will range in the same order, and have the same appearance. There is little doubt of their
having been rings, and not circular pieces of plate.” $
In another letter, Mr. Stothard touches on the same subject:
“ Amongst other other curious tilings, I have met with a figure which has some remarkable points
about it ; but for the discovery of these I devoted a whole day in clearing away a thick coating of
whitewash, which concealed them. The mail attached to the helmet was of that kind so frequently
represented in drawings, and which you have had doubts whether it was not another way of repre-
• See 1 ... iteil in tin work,
+ Pence, ventre. Panchierc ; portie <le I 'armour, destinee a couvrir le ventre. — Glossaire de la Langue Romane.
For the term hark pm, we should perhaps read horde pm, i. e. a strong piece of armour, composed of bars or lamimc
of iron. The appearance of Montacute’s armour about the waist will explain Mr. Stothard’s meaning.
1 Memoir, p. 268.
INTRODUCTION. 9
senting that sort we are already acquainted with. The lowest row of rings finish in the way I have
represented them, without the band or cord. I must advertise you that the original is but a coarse
representation. I have an impression of a small portion, where I found it sharpest :
yy j j j jjjJJJ ))Jj
mi ((mam
msmm
The cuisses of the same figure are remarkable :
Mr. Stothard, in these details, refers to the figure in the abbey church, Tewkesbury. On the sub¬
ject of the mails of armour, whether of plates or rings, he says that we should not be aware of the
varieties which existed but for the early illuminated MSS. He sketches from them, and from the
monuments, the following specimens, in addition to that above given :
Examples of the two last kinds, he says, are very common.
That prominent appendage of military costume, the surcoat, or tabard,* may claim a few particular
observations. It is said to have been adopted by the crusaders to the Holy Land, in order to pre¬
vent their armour from being heated to excess by the rays of a burning sun. Shakspeare has noted
this inconvenience incident to habiliments of steel, when he speaks of
- "A rich armour worn in heat of day.
That scalds with safety.” -
We are not disposed to doubt but this might, indeed, have been the origin of the surcoat; but we
believe that in this article of military attire, as in the rest, the crusaders imitated their infidel
opponents. The assertion of the learned Du Cange must not, however, passed unnoticed,* who tells
us that the cotte d’armes, or garment to cover the armour, was the most usual dress of the ancient
Gauls, and by them called sagum; that it did not commonly reach below the knee; thus Martial —
" Dimidiasque nates Gallica palla tegit ; ” —
that they wore this dress, in time of war, over the cuirass, as knights in later days wore their coats of
arms. The ancient Greeks wore a similar vesture over the cuirass, and called it, accordingly,
eKiQwpaKibiov and ireptObipaKtbiov. It is mentioned by Greek writers of the Middle Age, and styled,
in barbarous language, €m\u>ptciov and e*av oKXflavov. The knightly surcoat was at first very long,
and could, therefore, have little affinity with the sagum of the Gauls. It was worn for no other
Dissertations on the Hist, of St. Louis. Dissert.
10
INTRODUCTION.
purpose, perhaps, than that which lias been first mentioned; without we add the very p
that by its colour, or figured devices, it afforded a ready distinction* for the individual v
Nicetas thus describes the attire of the Prince of Antioch, a French lord, at a tournament held in
honour of the Emperor Manuel Comnenas: “He was mounted on a beautiful horse, whiter than
snow, clothed in a coat-of-arms open on both sides, and which fell to his heels — a/onn-o/ieim mwa
For an illustration, see the effigies of Geoffrey Magnaville and of the nameless
1 emplar.
The warriors represented in the Bayeux Tapestry wear no surcoatsover their coats of mail; but,
after the first crusade, they are common on our historical sculptural memorials. Joinville, in his
Lite of St. Louis, says: “I remember once the good Lord King (father to the King now on the
throne) speaking of the pomp of dress, and the embroidered coats-of-arms, that are now daily com¬
mon in the armies, I said to the present King, that, when I was in the Holy Land with his father,
am m las army, I never saw one single embroidered coat, or ornamented saddle, in possession of the
King his father, or any other lord. He answered that he had done wrong in embroidering his arms
and that he had some coats that had cost him eight hundred livres parisis."-!- At length, the surcoat
became an additional defence for the body, and was thickly gamboised, or quilted.
1 he same author, in the interesting personal narrative of his adventures in the Holy Land, cites a
striking instance of the efficacy of a quilted defence for the bodv: “I luckily found near me a gnu
bison of coarse cloth, belonging to a Saracen, and turning the slit part ’inward, I made a sort of
sudd, winch was of much service to me; for I was only wounded by their shots in five places,
whereas my horse was hurt in fifteen.”^
Those whose property did not qualify them to become knights, and wear the distinction of the
SefenTe ’ '™re “ “Pply ll,emselra • qtblted gambeson, or wamb.it,
“ Qtticumque vero 80 librarnm ,el antplias habebil de mobilibus, tenebitttr habere lorieom »el
errcale e. eapellam ferret™ ct iatteeam. Q„i vero minus de 20 libris habebi, de ntobilibtts, ienebitnr
liabere gambesam et capellum ferreum et lanceam.”
In the inventor, of the Wearing-apparel of King Louis Hunt,, made ISIS, he give, tts the follow-
“ Une c
de France,
gamboisiee
cuisses)
tte gamboisee de cendal blanc (white sarsenet). Deux tunieles et ui
Une couverture de gamboisons brodees des armes dtt roi Tmis
t ties armes do roi, et ones Inde, jasequenecs. Un caisiax gamboise
; couvertures gamboisees de France et de Navarre.”
i gamboist
paires de
Z (a pai
des armes
ouvertures
of gamboised
Mr. Stotltard, m reference to the gatnboising on monuments, in a letter to the Rev. T. Kerrich
Ze„„^„“lT Ur0".0" 'V°“rP‘™ **"> r°™“1 ™"i"g longitudinally. I
hate no, only dtscovered what „ ts , Mended represent, b„, also lately found (in further proof
there ™ bill,,,, d, Cl.te, Etul, af 01or«,„, wham, ,h, Scattt. weald gl.dl, fa, ,
liad knownc him ; but lie had forgotten to put on his coal,. „f ,r„,ae •• e. , ? ? 1 ,1‘
^ r.«d * riina p- »•
. “ Knish,s their conisante clad for the nonce.”
a b°dy "“h ““ «. Ufa* kaigtu,
•' Took his labarde, and staffe eke,
. , . . , . And on his hedde he set his hatte.” Plowman's Tale
+ Johnes s translation of Joinville’s Memoirs. 4to, 1S07 p 04 , „ . . _
; MS. af the year I3M, cited by Du Cange. ’ i IW. p. ■«.
§ Sec Du Cange. Notes on the Memoir of St. Louis. Trans
uD. 1313 :
ne. if they
The dis-
3. p. 330.
INTRODUCTION.
11
my conjecture was riglit) a knight whose long surcoat, with sleeves in separate pieces, is composed of
it; but what puts the matter beyond doubt is the surcoat of Edward the Black Prince, hanging over
his tomb. I have lately examined and drawn it. The whole is ribbed in a similar manner; but we
soon account for that, having one specimen of the thing before us, when a hundred of the best repre¬
sentations in stone would not have done it. The surcoat of the Black Prince is stuffed with cotton
to nearly three quarters of an inch in thickness; and, in order to keep the cotton in its place, longi¬
tudinal and narrow divisions were made all over it — in short it is quilted; the divisions being the
places where the cotton is sewed down — what, I believe, was called by the French gamboising.” *
On the use of coats-of-arms by the infidels, the authority of Joinville is very decisive. Speaking of
the youthful captives made in war, purchased of contending states in the East, and composing the
Sultan’s body-guard, he says: “These youths bore the arms of the Sultan, and were called his
Bahairiz. When their beards were grown, the Sultan made them knights ; and their emblazonments
were, like his, of pure gold, save that, to distinguish them, they added bars of Vermillion, with
roses, birds, griffins, or any other difference, as they pleased. They were called the Band of the
Hauleca; which signifies the Archers of the King’s Guard.” +
Thus it also appears probable that the metallic colours of heraldry had their rise in the actual use
of the precious metals by the infidels, in the gorgeous distinctions assumed by them for their armour. J
During the late long-continued war in which this country was engaged, every military man will
recollect that many points of foreign military costume were adopted by the officers of the British army.
It does not, therefore, appear wonderful that the first crusaders should have imitated the splendid
arms in which their enemies were attired, or, to extend the remark, that theywere induced to adopt
their light and elegant pointed style of building, in the room of the heavy features to which they
themselves had debased the Roman architecture.
In continuation, we now add some of Mr. Stothard’s own remarks, on these and correlative points
“ Of the surcoat. — John is the first of the Kings of England, we observe, to wear the surcoat over
the hauberk. An old French writer tells us Charlemagne had always, in winter, a new surcoat, with
sleeves lined with fur, to guard his body and heart from cold.
“ The Crest, or Cap of Estate. — On the seals of Edward the Third, made after he had assumed the
lilies of France, by quartering them with the leopards of England, we observe for the first time the
cap of estate surmounted with the lion, A. D. 1388.
“ We do not find by our monuments, or other memorials, that crests were borne in such variety as
at present; with but few exceptions, they were originally the heads of beasts or birds, or bunches of
feathers. The reared arm bearing the cross, the demi-lion, and many others of the same character,
which now abound, are most probably the conceits of the age of Henry the Eighth, when quaint
fancies were sought after.
“ From the tomb of Richard the Second, and other evidences, it appears he not only impaled the
arms of England with those of Edward the Confessor, but also used them on an escutcheon alone,
Edward the Confessor having been adopted by Richard as his patron saint. An example of this, and
perhaps the best, is to be found over the entrance to Westminster Hall. Edward the Third adopted
St. George as his patron saint ; and we find on the tomb of that King the arms of England and the
cross of St. George alternately enamelled on escutcheons: and it is not improbable that the cross of
* Memoir, p. 267. An example of the gamboised surcoat, clearly defined, will be seen in the effigy of Shurland.
•f Johnes’s translation of Joinville’s Memoirs, p. 156.
J How many distinctive bearings were suggested by garments, arms, or implements, which must have been familiar to
the warriors of the crusades : mauches, vair, flanches, minever, swords, arbalists, bows, lances, arrows, pheons (barbed
heads for missiles), battering-rams, water-budgets, &c.
INTRODUCTION.
St. George lias been the English badge ever since Edward’s time.* This appears still more likely,
when it is considered that Edward the Third founded the Order of the Garter.
« Knights being represented cross-legged was certainly allusive to Templars, or Knights of the
Holy Voyage; as after Edward the Third's reign (in which the order was dissolved) we find no
monuments in that fashion.
“At the earlier period, when the mail covered the head, it appeal’s not to have been detached
from, but to have been one piece with, that which covered the body ; but in the early part of the
reign of Henry the Third, to which period our earliest effigies belong, we see the mail flat on the top
of the head, and laced or tied above the left ear. Of this description are the effigies of many of the
knights in the Temple church, William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, the Knight in Malvern abbey
church, Robert Courthose, &c. An early specimen differs considerably from these, as the mail appears
to go over the surcoat, not to have any kind of lacing or fastening much above the ears, nor to be
attached to the shirt of mail, as in the former— only, like them, characterized by this flatness.
“The last alteration we find, is the mail as before, but of one entire piece, sometimes with and
sometimes without a fillet: but resembling the hood, a part of the civil dress, to be drawn over the
head, and thrown back upon the shoulders, at pleasure.
“ The basinet was worn in the fourteenth century, and part of the thirteenth, sometimes with or
without a vizor, but always finished with other appendages, as vervilles.f The camail, and what was
called by the French a hourson, to which may be added a strap, was to attach the whole, by means of
a buckle, to the haubergeon, or plates.
“ The camail was originally a covering of mail for the head, and was called capmail, the basinet
being worn over it; but about 1330 its form was materially altered : it no longer extended as a cover¬
ing for the head ; vervilles, or staples, were introduced on the basinet, and the camail fastened outside,
by means of these and a lace. We have some few instances, about the period that this change took
place, where the ends of the mail, nt its junction with the basinet, are left folding over the laciii"-,
and depending on each side in an ornamental form. The cnmail was often called the barbicrc, or
the gorgerelte, after the changes took place; but as there is more consistency in Froissart, in his
descriptions of armour, I have preferred that name by which he invariably distinguishes this ap¬
pendage to the basinet. The lacing of the helmet to the cerveUlerc appears to have been first dis¬
used in all those monuments of the time of Henry the Fourth, and was never afterwards resumed. {
Speaking of the fanciful diaper-work introduced in die first and fourth quarters of the shield of
third, Mr. Stothard, with his usual discrimination, says he does not see that any herald is justified in
calling the fleu-de-lys ornament a quarter of France.^
On circlets, chaplets or wreaths, and coronets, so often occurring on our monumental figures, Mr.
Stothard makes the following notes :
• This is a judicious observation of Mr. Stothard; for we find by Matthew Paris that, in the year 1188, the French
cusaders were distinguished by red crosses, the English by white, the Flemings by green. We may therefore infer
that the red cross was not then one of our national ensigns. " Crucem aniraosius susceperunt. Provisum est etiam
inter cos. ut omnes de regno. Francorum cruets rubeas, dc terris regis Anglorum albas, de terra comitis Flandrensis
virides haberent cruccs.” Matt. Palis, Hist. Angl. edit. Watts, p. 146.
t Memoir, p. 335. * ibid. p. 332.
Ibid. 12G.
INTRODUCTION. 13
“ The coronet does not appear to have been used, under its present form (excepting it is discovered
on the heads of females), by princes, dukes, earls, or knights, till the reign of Edward the Third, and
it is then to be found indiscriminately on the heads of all these. We may therefore infer that it was
used rather as an ornament than as a particular mark of distinction, as it is to be seen in the monu¬
ments on the helmets of simple knights, as well as earls; but it perhaps became so when it disap¬
peared on the helmets of the former, and was retained on those of the latter. The coronet, under
the present form, before the introduction of the leaves, was simply a fillet, more or less ornamented,
to confine the hair, and was worn alike by all classes above a certain rank. The coronet, under the
name of garland, is spoken of by Matthew Paris.* In its nearer approach to the modern coronet, it
became adorned with precious stones. We have good evidence that in this state it was called a circle.
As an ornamented fillet it was probably regarded in the reign of Edward the Third ; for Lionel
Duke of Clarence in his will leaves two golden circles, with one of which he says he was created a
Duke, and with the other his brother Edward was created a Prince. Edmund Earl of March leaves
to his daughter Philippa a coronet of gold, with stones, and two hundred great pearls; also a circle,
with roses, emeralds, and rubies of Alexandria in the roses.
“ The chaplet, hi the time of Henry the Fourth, appears to have been worn round the helmet as a
defence, being composed of twisted linen, or a fillet of cloth stuffed with somewhat most capable of
resisting the blow of a sword. For a specimen of the latter, we must look to Bohun, in Gloucester
cathedral.”
We shall venture to add a few remarks in continuation of Mr. Stothard’s.
The chaplet, and the heraldic wreath placed under the crest, are perhaps nearly the same thing ;
only that, when the helmet was taken off, the wreath was removed to the basinet. The probable
origin of the heraldic wreath was the twisted turban of the infidels, called by Joinville a twisted towel,
the folds of which he mentions as forming a good defence against the cut of sword or sabre. The
pot-helmet of the effigy of a Crusader in the Temple church, seems to be furnished with a plain
padded fillet. As the military costume advanced in luxurious splendour, this wreath, chaplet, or
circlet, was adorned with rich chasing of goldsmiths' work, precious stones, &c. See a beautiful
example in the details of the monument of Sir Edmund de Thorpe.
The knightly wreath, and its protuberant size, is noted by Chaucer. He says it was as thick as the
arm:
" A wreth of gold arm grot, of huge weight,
Upon his hed set, ful of stones bright.
Of fine rubys and clere diamants." - The Knight’s Tale, 1. 2146.
Froissart relates to us, with his usual interesting circumstantiality, the manner in which Edward
the Third presented a chaplet of pearls to the gallant French knight, Sir Eustace de Ribeaumont :
“ When supper was over, and the tables removed, the King remained in the hall among the English
and French knights bareheaded, except a chaplet of fine pearls which was round his head. * * *
When he came to Sir Eustace de Ribeaumont, he assumed a cheerful look, and said with a smile,
* Sir Eustace, you are the most valiant knight in Christendom, that I ever saw attack his enemy or
defend himself. I never yet found any one in battle who, body to body, had given me so much to do
as you have done this day. I adjudge to you the prize of valour above all the knights of my court,
as what is justly due to you. The King then took off the chaplet, which was very rich and hand-
* Mr. Stothard alludes to the following passage : “ Dominus Rex veste deaurata facta de preciosissirao Baldefcino,
et coronula aurea (pise vulgariter t/arlaiida dicitur redimitus, sedens gloriose in solio regio jussit,” &c. Matt. Parisiensis.
in vita Henrici III. edit. Watts, p. 736. This is the part where Henry the Third causes a portion of the blood of
Christ, sent to him by the Patriarch and Bishops of Palestine, to be deposited with great ceremony in the abbey church
of Westminster, and girds William de Valence, his uterine brother, on the same occasion, with the sword of knighthood.
II. INTRODUCTION.
some, and placing it on the head of Sir Eustace, said, ‘Sir Eustace, I present you with this chaplet,
as being the best combatant this day, either within or without doors; and I beg of you to wear it this
year, for love of me. I know that you are lively and amorous, and love the company of ladies and
damsels; therefore say, wherever you go, that I gave it you,’ ” * * * §
These coronets, circlets, or garlands, were at first, perhaps, like the collar of SS. at a later period,
a general distinction for gentle rank or honourable achievement. A ram and a ring were constituted
the prize for the victor at an ancient wrestling-match. The ring spoken of was, we imagine, a circlet
for the head, not for the finger.
" Much worship were it, sothly,
Brotbir. unto us all.
Might I the Ram, and als the Ring,
Bringin home to the hall.”
Chaucer, The Coke’s Tale of Gamelvn.
Chaplets, or garlands, were used at funerals to decorate the corpse or bier of deceased virgins, or
suspended in the church where they had attended divine worship. Within our recollection, some,
curiously formed of paper, were hanging in Earningham church, in Kent. A writer in the Gentle¬
man’s Magazine for June 1717, says, that “in 1733, as the parish-clerk of Bromley, in Kent, was
digging a grave in the churchyard, close to the east end of the chancel wall, he dug up a funeral
garland, or crown, artificially wrought in filagree-work with gold and silver wire, in resemblance of
myrtle. Its leaves were fastened to hoops of larger wire of iron, which were something corroded with
rust; but both the gold and silver wire remained very little different from its original splendour. The
inside was also lined with cloth of silver.” f The priest at Ophelia’s funeral says, she is allowed
“ her virgin crants,” { or garlands.
The Monumental Effigies afford many interesting specimens of female habits, and of civil costume
in general. Of the wimpled attire of the head, we have examples in the effigies of Aveline Countess
of Lancaster, and of the Lady on the brass in Minster church. Chaucer shows us that these head-
clothes were somewhat weighty : his Wife of Bath,
" Of cloth-making had such a haunt, §
She passid them of Ypres or of Gaunt.
Her coverchiefes were large, and fine of ground,
I durst to swere that they weyid three pound,
That on a Sondav were upon her hedde.
Her hoain were of line scarlet redde,
Full strait ystrained ; and her shoos new.
Upon her ambler easily she satte,
All wimpled well, and on her hed a hatte
As hrode us is a bokeler or a targe ;
A foot mantil about her hippis large.” ||
The last line informs us that she wore a mantle down to her feet.
If we refer to the beautifully illuminated Persian MSS. in the British Museum, we shall be
induced to believe the wimple was adopted from the ladies of the East. The coincidence of chain-
mail armour in these MSS. with that of our old crusaders, is also very remarkable.
* Johncs's Froissart, vnl. II. p, 248, Svo. edit.
+ See Dunkin’s Outlines of the History of Bromley, in Kent.
I Hamlet, Act V. Scene i.
§ Such a hoard of manufactured cloths for garments.
|| Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.
INTRODUCTION.
The fret in which the hair was confined forms a remarkable appendage of the coiffure of the women
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was probably composed of gold or silver wire, and
studded with pearls or precious stones. Chaucer will afford us an illustration in the following lines :
To which may be added these :
- " And in his handc a Quccne,
And she was clad in roiall habite grene ;
A /re/ of galt/e she had next her here ;
With flourounis small; and, I shall not lie
For all the worlde, right as a daisie
Icrownid is with white levis Iite,
So were the flourounis of hei crowne white.
For of a perle fine orientall
Her white coroune was imakid all ;
For which the white coroune above the grene
Ymade her like a daisie foj to sene,
Considerid eke her fret of goldc above.”
Legende of Good Women, l. 213.
- " And everich on her hede
A rich fret of golde, which, withouten drede,
Was full of stately rich stones set ;
And every lady had a chapelet."
The Floure and the Leafe, x.. 151.
That part of dress worn by women called the kirlle, seems never to have been precisely defined.
We believe that it consisted of a sort of close waistcoat without sleeves, to which a petticoat was
attached, all in one piece.*
" Full fctis damoselles two
Right yong, and full of semely hede.
In kirtils, and none other wede ;
And fair ytressid every tress.”
Romaunt of the Rose, l. 776.
The kirtle was worn by men as well as women. Chaucer’s spruce parish-clerk is attired in that
habit :
" Crulle was his here, and as the gold it shon,
And strouted as a fanne, large and brode ;
Full streight and even lay his joly shode ;
H is rode was red, his eyen grey as goos ;
With Poule’s windowes corven on his shoes, "t
In hosen red, he went ful fetislv-
Yclad he was ful smal and properly.
All in a kirlel of a light waget,
Ful faire and thicke ben the pointes set ;
And therupon he had a gay surplise.
As white as is the blosme upon rise.”
Before the introduction of the fret, the hair of females was plaited. See the figure in Scarcliffe
church. In the twelfth century, the hair of both males and females were thus disposed in long tresses :
“Then was there flowing hair (fluxus crinium), and extravagant dress; and then was invented the
fashion of shoes with curved points. Then the model for young men was to rival women in delicacy
of person, to mince their gait, and to walk, with loose gesture, half naked. J
* Very similar to this is the dress of the scholars of Christ’s Hospital at this day.
t For shoes ornamented in this style, see those of William of Hatfield, Plate 70. Profile view.
{ Sharpe’s translation of William of Malmesbury, p. 336. This passage refers to the reign of William Rufus.
INTRODUCTION.
A striking example of this “fluxus crinium,’' is presented by the figure of Henry the First’s Queen
(cotempornrv with tliat King's reign), which forms a pilaster to the west door of Rochester cathedral.
The figure of the King himself forms another. The Queen’s hair depends over either shoulder in
long plaits, below her knees. The kings and queens in the curious ancient chess-men of the twelfth
century, lately exhibited at the Society of Antiquaries, wear the hair hanging over the shoulders in
several long distinct plaits. The west front of the cathedral of St. Denis exhibits a series of the early
Kings and Queens of France, with their hair thus disposed. Mrs. Bray has, in her large collection of
Mr. C. Stothard’s original drawings, his beautiful views of these figures. Ancient as they are, Mont-
faucon makes them' much more so, and calls them, we believe, “ Les Rois Merovingiens.”
The caU-hardie, like the justc-au-corps , was, we think, a close-bodied vest. Perhaps it derived its
n leaving the neck and bosom bare. Mr. Stothard says, “ it was a summer-dress with
ladies towards the end of the fourteenth century, and tells the following anecdote in relation to it :
‘ A certain nobleman had two daughters, but one was fairer then the other. A gallant knight, who
had heard the fame of her beauty, asked and obtained her father's leave to woo her. The day was
fixed ; the knight arrived. When the damsels appeared, the plain sister came dressed in the order
of the season : but the fair one, wishing to outvie her, and to show her charms to the best advantage,
wore the cote-hardic , which made her so cold, and her nose looked so red and blue, that the knight
could not fancy her beauty ; so he wooed and wedded the other maid.’
“ In the thirty-seventh year of Edward the Third, the wives and daughters of esquires, not possessing
the yearly amount of two hundred pounds, are forbidden to wear any purfilling or facings on their
garments, or to use any esc/nires crinales, or Irefles. The wives and daughters of knights, not pos¬
sessing property to the value of two hundred marks a year, were restricted from using linings of
r latices csclaircs, or any kind of precious stones, unless it be upon their heads.”
Of the crescent horned head-dress, with its pendant drapery, constructed, no doubt, upon wires,
the figure of Beatrice Countess of Arundel, presents an extravagant instance. The same appen¬
dage, arranged in better taste, appears on the female in the plate lettered Sir Robert Gmshill and
his Lady : and it will be observed worn under the hoods of the female mourners round Beauchamp
Earl of Warwick’s tomb. “ The mantle appears to have been given only to married women, in the
monuments of the time of Henry the Fourth.” *
Of the usual Civil Costume of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, excellent examples will be
found in the tombs of William of Hatfield, William of Windsor, Blanch dela Tour, and the mourners
on the monument of .Sir Roger de Kerdeston. One of these mourners, a female, and the figure of
the Lady of Sir Miles Stapleton, have long pendant lappets to their sleeves. That of the Judge
in Willoughby church, Nottinghamshire, has a tunic to which very full sleeves are attached, and he
■t with a rich ceint. , or girdle; an appendage of knights, civilians, and ecclesiastics (when unattired
irteenth century.
" Change of clothing every day.
With golden girdles, great an small."
Plowman’s Tale.
There are numerous examples of the Regal Habits in the Monumental Effigie;
royal effigies at Fontevraud we distinguish the tunic, the supertunic t
crowns, the boots marked as sandals, the jewelled gloves, Ac. \
these regalia until the time of Henry the Fourth.
The early Episcopal figure in the Temple church shows us the plain low mitre and pastoral staff
used by Bishops of that period.
In those of the
dalmatic, the mantle, the
the variation in the fashion of
INTRODUCTION. ]7
The figure of Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury gives a faithful representation of the pontifical
habit of a later day; the rich jewelled anil more elevated mitre, crocketted with goldsmiths’ work- the
pall, maniple, chasuble, cope, jewelled gloves, &c. The costly ornaments of the episcopal office are
touched upon in the Plowman’s Tale :
" Miters thei werin, mo than two,
Iperlid as the Qucene's head ;
A staff of golde and pirrie,* lo !
As hevie as it were made of ledde ;
With cloth bothe new and redde ;
With glitterande gold, as grene as gall.”
The mitred Abbot of the Monks of Westminster* is a fine example of the costume of his order.
Had Mr. Stothard survived to complete his work, no doubt he would have added to it the habits of
other ecclesiastical orders. It is, however, matter of satisfaction that he has left so little unnoticed by
his pencil, which could illustrate the progress of our national costume, regal, ecclesiastical, civil, and
military.
In closing these prefatory notes, which the antiquarian reader will no doubt amplify from his own
store of knowledge, and by examination of the plates (which ever will be found a faithful volume
speaking for themselves); it may be acceptable that some short account of the author’s life should be
added.*
Charles Alfred Stothard was the eldest surviving son of Thomas Stothard, Esq. R. A.; he
was born July 5th, 1787.
At an early age he exhibited a strong propensity for study, and a genius for drawing. The latter
was more particularly developed in various clever miniature scenes which he executed for his school¬
boy model of a stage. On leaving school he entered, by his own wish, as a student in the Royal Aca¬
demy, where he soon attracted notice for the chaste feeling and accuracy with which he drew from the
antique sculptures.
In 1802 he accompanied his father to Burleigh, the seat of the Marquis of Exeter, the "rand
staircase of which the latter was employed in decorating by his masterly pencil. Mr. Stothard senior,
suggested to his son that he might fill up his time by making drawings of the monuments in the
neighbouring churches, as useful authorities for designing costume. This circumstance gave the first
bias of Mr. C harles Stotliard’s mind towards the subject which afterwards became his pursuit.
In 1808 he received his ticket as student in the Life Academy, and formed a resolution to become
an historical painter. Circumstances which subsequently arose, however, changed this determination.
Having formed an attachment for the young lady who afterwards became his wife, he feared that
as an historical painter he might not acquire sufficient pecuniary independence to enable him pru¬
dently to become a married man. He resolved, therefore, to turn his attention exclusively to the illus¬
tration of our national antiquities, more particularly in a path which had hitherto been but imperfectly
pursued— the delineation of the sculptured Effigies erected in our churches as memorials for the dead,
in such manner as they might be referred to and depended on as accurate authorities, illustrating our
national history and ancient costume.
In 1810 Mr. Charles Stothard painted a spirited picture, representing the murder of Richard the
Second in Pontefract Castle, in which the characteristic dresses of the time were strictly adhered to.
* Pirrie, for pierrerie, jewelry,
t See Print of William of Colchester.
18 INTRODUCTION.
the portrait of the King himself, he made studies from his effigy in Westminster Abbey. This
picture was exhibited at Somerset Place in 1811. .
In the same year he published his first Number of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain,
the objects of which were detailed in the following advertisement, which accompanied the publi¬
cation : .
“ It is a circumstance much to be regretted, that so important and interesting a subject as tne
Monumental Effigies of our Kings, Princes, and Nobles, should have been treated with so much
neglect, as among all the works published with the intention of giving representations of them, there
is not one that can be relied on. Without possessing that simplicity and chastity which characterizes
the originals, they are not correct even as to particulars. It was partly on this account that this W or
was undertaken, with a view, by paying the most particular attention to the subject, to rescue from
the destroyer Time those Works of Art, introduced into our Cathedrals and Churches as Memorials
for the Dead, which, independent of their antiquity, are the greater part specimens of sculpture,
which, for grandeur, simplicity, and chastity of style, are not to be surpassed, it equalled, by any
nation in Europe.
“ There are, though not generally known, as they have never been published, a few Etchings by the
Rev. T. Kerrich, of Cambridge,* from Monuments in the Dominicans’ and other Churches in Paris,
which claim the highest praise that can be bestowed, as well for their accuracy as for the style in
which they are executed : these are mentioned as a tribute which they deserve, and as the sight of
them induced the proprietor of this Work to execute the Etchings for it himself.
“ Had it been but to remedy the above-mentioned defect, there would not, perhaps, have been sufficient
encouragement for entering on a Work of this magnitude, till it was found on consideration that
other very desirable points would be gained, which would make it more generally interesting. The
first of which was the great service these Monumental Effigies would render the Historical Painter, by-
explaining the costume adopted at different periods in England, as they give more complete ideas on
the subject than can be drawn from any other source : the knowledge we now have in this respect has
been in general gathered from the illuminated MSS. in our public libraries ; but cither from the
minuteness of the figures in some, or the rudeness of the drawing in others that are on a larger scale,
they are too much generalized, and do not give us those smaller parts and ornaments which are so
interesting.
“ 'Die second point gained, was that of elucidating History and Biography, as most of those charac¬
ters must in the course of this Work be brought in, who have been concerned in the civil and military
affairs of England from the earliest times to the reign of Henry the Eighth. This has also sug¬
gested the idea of illustrating the Historical Plays of our great dramatic poet Shakspeare, in order to
assist the stage in selecting its costume with that propriety which will always add consequence to his
characters, and give that stamp of truth which they so highly deserve. W e should not then see as
now the slashed doublet and cloak, peculiar to the sixteenth century, introduced without discrimina¬
tion in the play of King John as well as that of Henry the Eighth ; or the Bastard Fauleon-
bridge in armour, which would puzzle the most profound antiquary to know when or where such was
“ If it be true that we may derive the above advantages from the Monumental Effigies of Great
Britain, they surely deserve to be saved from the oblivion in which so many have already sunk, and pre¬
served as records of the splendour with which sculpture once flourished in England.”
Mr. Stothard’s undertaking procured for him the warm friendship of the Rev. 1 . Kerrich, of whose
• Some of these etchings were afterwards communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by Mr. Kerrich, and inserted
in their Archicologia, vol. XVIII. p. Ip".
INTRODUCTION. l‘J
talents he makes such honourable mention ; and for the candid criticism of that excellent judge of
matters of antiquity and art in the progress of his work, he at all times expressed himself much
indebted.*
The talents of Mr. C. Stothard as an artist, and the accuracy of his research in objects connected
with his pursuit, soon obtained for him a distinguished reputation as an antiquary, and the acquaint¬
ance of characters eminent for their learning and respectability. Among these were the late Sir Joseph
Banks (who highly appreciated him), and Samuel Lysons, Esq. the joint author of “ Magna Bri¬
tannia,” who esteemed him as a friend. Mr. Lysons employed him to make some drawings illustrative
of his work; for which purpose, in the summer of 1815, Mr. C. Stothard made a journey northward as
far as the Piets’ Wall, adding to his portfolio many drawings for the Magna Britannia, monumental
subjects for himself, and a number of little sketches, executed in the most delicate and peculiar manner,
of different views and buildings in the country through which he passed. During his absence from
London Mr. Lysons'gave him a proof of his esteem and regard, by obtaining for him, unsolicited, the
appointment of Historical Draughtsman to the Society of Antiquaries of London.
In 1816 he was deputed by that body to commence his elaborate and faithful drawings of the famous
Tapestry deposited at Bayeux. During his absence in France he visited Chinon, and in the neigh¬
bouring Abbey of Fontevraud discovered those interesting Effigies of the Plantagenets, the existence
of which after the revolutionary devastation had become doubtful, but which were of high importance to
him as subjects for his work. The following account of this matter is given in Mrs. C. Stothard s
Tour in Britanny : — “ When Mr. Stodmrd first visited France, during the summer of 1816, he came
direct to Fontevraud, to ascertain if the Effigies of our early Kings who were buried there yet existed ;
subjects so interesting to English history were worthy of the inquiry. He found the abbey converted
into a prison, and discovered in a cellar belonging to it, the Effigies of Henry the Second and his
Queen Eleanor of Guienne, Richard the First, and Isabella of Angouleme, the Queen of John. The
chapel where the figures were placed before the revolution had been entirely destroyed, and these
valuable Effigies, then removed to the cellar, were subject to continual mutilation from the prisoners,
who came twice in every day to draw water from a well. It appeared they had sustained some injury,
as Mr. S. found several broken fragments scattered around. He made drawings of the figures; and
upon his return to England represented to our Government the propriety of securing such interesting
memorials from further destruction. It was deemed advisable, if such a plan could be accomplished,
to gain possession of them, that they might be placed with the rest of our Royal Effigies in West¬
minster Abbey.”+ An application was accordingly made, which failed; but it had the good effect of
drawing the attention of the French authorities towards these remains, and saving them from total
destruction. At the same period Mr. Stothard visited the Abbey of L’Espan, near Mans, in search of
the effigy of Berengaria, Queen of Richard the First : he found the abbey church converted into a barn,
and the object of liis inquiry in a mutilated state, concealed under a quantity of wheat.! At Mons
he discovered the beautiful enamelled tablet representing Geoffrey Plantagenet. Mr. Stothard’s
drawings of the Effigies of the English Monarchy extant in France, were, on his return from
Fontevraud, submitted by the late Sir George Nayler to the inspection of his late Majesty George the
Fourth, who was graciously pleased to express an earnest desire for their publication, and to allow
Mr. Stothard to dedicate his Work, the Monumental Effigies, to him. In 1817 he made a second
journey to Bayeux for the purpose of continuing his drawings from the Tapestry. In February 1818
* Mr. Kerrich’s numerous and interesting collection of sketches and plans of the details of Gothic Architecture wero
left, at his death, to the British Museum. His collection of paintings of the Gothic Age were bequeathed to the Society
of Antiquaries, and arc suspended on the walls of their meeting-room.
f Tour in Britanny, p. 294, J See Memoir of his Life, pp. 243 to 248.
INTRODUCTION.
carefully
> antiquarian pursuits
lie married the young lady to whom lie had so long been attached, Anna Eliza, the only daughter of
the late John Kempc, Esq. of the New Kent Road. In July following she accompanied him in his
third expedition to France, which he made with a view of completing the Bayeux Tapestry.
His task being accomplished, he proceeded with Mrs. Stothard on a tour’ of investigation through
Normandy, and more particularly Britanny. In order to render their families participators in some
degree of the pleasure of their journey, Mrs. Stothard addressed to her mother, Mrs. Kempe, a parti¬
cular detail of it in a series of letters, which her husband illustrated by various beautiful drawings of
the views, costume, and architectural antiquities, which they thought worthy of notice in their route:
these formed the ground-work of the publication of Letters to which we have referred.
In 1S19 Mr. C'. Stothard laid before the Society of Antiquaries the complete series of his Drawings
!' 01,1 1*"'’ ^ aPestry ol Bayeux : and a paper highly creditable to his discrimination, in which he proved
from internal evidence, that the Tapestry was coeval with the period- immediately succeeding the Con¬
quest, refuting the assertions of the Abbd de la Rue. This Essay was printed in vol. xix. of the
Archffiologia. On the 2d of July of the same year Mr. Stothard was unanimously elected a Fellow of
the Society of Antiquaries. In the following autumn he made a series of exquisitely finished draw¬
ings for the Society, from the paintings then lately discovered on the walls of the Painted Chamber
in the ancient royal palace of Westminster. Fearlessly ardent in his pursuit, he took his stand on the
highest and most dangerous parts of the scaffold erected for the repairs; and on one occasion there,
narrowly escaped the fate which afterwards befel him. The Society of Antiquaries are in possession
of these admirable drawings; and they will, doubtless, when it shall be practicable,
engraved for one of their annual publications.
Some characteristic anecdotes of the ardour of Mr. Charles Stothard in hit
may find admission here.
The monument of Aveline Countess of Lancaster, in Westminster Abbey, was concealed by the
lofty cenotaph of Lord Ligonier, and thus rendered inaccessible to the light of day. Never daunted
by any difficulties which offered themselves to an antiquarian pursuit, Mr. Stothard furnished his
pockets with wax-candles, clay, and a percussion tube (a German invention for producing fire). Thus
prepared, he watched his opportunity, scaled the monument of Lord Ligonier, lit and fixed his
candles, and in the situation above described, smothered with dust, actually completed the drawing of
the beautiful monument which embellishes his series of Effigies, without the knowledge of any of “the
attendants in the abbey.
In one of his customary rambles with the writer, he had the good fortune to meet with the monu¬
ment ot Sir John Peche, or Pechy, as the name is pronounced, at the site of an old baronial man¬
sion, Lullingstone Castle, near Eynsford, in Kent. The effigy afforded a fine specimen of the
military costume of the age of Henry the Eighth. The whole was in admirable preservation; but
the very circumstance which had contributed to that perfect state, rendered it almost
for an artist to gain such an entire view as might enable him to
an horizontal slab, distant not more than eighteen inches froi
difficulty did not repulse Mr. Stothard. By t
by soak), he brought all the parts into their due relative proportion, anti in two days produced the
g of Which the late Mr. Bartholomew Hewlett made a very satisfactory etching, after Air.
Stothard’s death, for this work.
Often when a monument was so disfigured us, to tile eye of an, ordinary observer, to appear hope-
css as the subject for a drawing, would Mr. Stothard, by industriously stripping it, by means of a
penknife, of its barbarous coat of whitewash, or other plastering (called by country churchwardens
beauUJy.mj) , restore the sharpness of the parts, and produce a drawing replete with the finest minutite
ot detail. Never was there an eye more accurately observant of the characteristic points of art in
mpossible
draw it correctly ; it was covered by
1 the face. (See the Vignette.) This
5 aid of a graduated line (he drew all his monuments
dra
INTRODUCTION. 21
different ages than Mr. Stothard's. Not a fragment of painted glass, or tile decorated by any sort of
ornament, but he could assign to it a proper era. This lion rampant was of the manner adopted in
blazoning heraldic bearings in the reign of the First Edward ; the ornament on that belt was of the
Third; the mitre on the head of a certain Bishop was of Henry the Third’s time; the style of such a
capital bespoke a coeval date. The original conjecture that the collar of SS. expressed Henry the
Fourth's favourite motto, Souverayne, was one instance of his critical acumen ; and a good proof that
his solution of the enigma was right, is, that some antiquaries have since unhesitatingly adopted it as
their own : — an observation which might be extended to the piracies which have been committed on
his monumental etchings ; for such they become, when his drawings have been copied without even
the courtesy of acknowledgment.
There was more of that nerve and perseverance necessary for the pursuit of his monumental
researches in solitude, and in wild and unfrequented districts, than a common observer, from the un¬
pretending demeanour of Mr. Stothard, might have supposed. Many miles did he pass through
obscure paths, to bye and unfrequented villages, in search of ancient effigies. On his arrival at the
church, he often found the effigy which he was in search of removed, or so mutilated and disfigured
as to be useless for his work. Many days and weeks did he spend in rural solitudes, the whole of his
day being passed in the church, and at night was forced to content himself with taking up his quarters
at the village public-house; where, he has often been heard to say, the sight of a pedlar with his pack
was a most unwelcome one, as it often foretold that the only tenantable bed in the cabin was occupied
for the night. Yet Mr. Stothard had resources in his own mind, drawn not only from his pursuits,
but his good understanding, which preserved his spirits in these scenes. Seated near the chimney of
the village alehouse fire, the burning brands illuminating the ample hearth, the motley group of
rustics all around, he would listen to their conversation, and note it down when it took a singular or
comic turn; or he would take out his little sketch-book, and delineate their boorish features. “ There
is great pleasure,” he would say, “ in observing the character of man in all its forms.” “ How often, in
a village alehouse,” would he add, “have I recognized the clowns of our inimitable Shakspeare.”
It was no small part of Mr. Stothard’s aptitude for his task, that he joined to his rare talent a
slender active body, of the middle stature, about five feet eight inches in height, habits remarkably
abstemious, and the most perfect health. He was capable of the longest walks, without suffering
inconvenience from them. On one occasion (in the evening, after finishing the drawing from the
monument of Sir Thomas Cawne) he walked from Ightham, in Kent, to London.
Mr. Stothard had projected several graphic works, illustrative of English history, to be executed
by himself, after the manner of his monumental effigies — as a chronological series of ancient seals;
a miscellaneous collection of effigies, and subjects illustrating the Elizabethan age : and Mrs. Bray
has in her possession his original drawings of the effigies of some of the characters eminent in French
history, sufficient of themselves to form a publication consisting of several plates. Mrs. Bray has
also a valuable collection of his sketch-books, in which are noted every object which arrested his at¬
tention in his numerous antiquarian excursions.
In September 1820 he again visited the Continent, making a tour of the Netherlands for the
benefit of Mrs. C. Stothard’s health. He added, in this tour, several fine drawings of local scenery
and architecture to his stock. Mrs. Stothard also, who (under his instruction in drawing from
antique busts) had acquired much skill in the imitative art, added to the number of these drawings,
by delineating one point of view of a building, or other object, while her husband made another, little
thinking how shortly their accordant taste and pursuits were to be disunited in this world for ever !
We now approach the melancholy close of Mr. Charles Stothard’s mortal race. Having been
solicited, by the Rev. Daniel Lysons, to make some drawings for the accoimt of Devon in the Magna
Britannia, on the 16th of May he parted from his affectionate and pregnant wife, never to meet her
22 INTRODUCTION.
more on this side “ tvmt bourn whence no traveller returns.” He traversed a considerable part of
Devonshire on foot, exploring the churches in his way for effigies, and making sketches of the country,
according to his practice. He arrived at Bere Ferrers; and, on Sunday the 27th of May, after
attending Divine service, addressed the Vicar of that place, the Rev. Henry Hobart, for permission
to draw the stained glass in the east window of the church, representing the Founder and his Lady.
On the following morning Mr. Stothard began, by means of a ladder, to make tracings of the subjects
represented on the painted glass. Elevated on the north side of the altar, just above the tables in¬
scribed with the Creed and Decalogue, the step of the ladder- dreadful to relate — gave way ! He
fell; and, in the effort to save himself, probably turned round. His head came in contact with the
slab on which the figure of a Knight is placed in the chancel wall ; and he was, in all probability,
kil'ed on the spot, by a concussion of the brain— receiving his death-blow from one of those very
elfigies front which, through his talents, he will receive a sublunary immortality. The fall which
terminated the career of the artist, literally snapt the pencil which he held in his hand in twain ! His
venerable father, distinguished alike for his genius and his worldly bereavements (he had lost, some
years before, his eldest son, by an accident equally terrible and sudden), repaired to the spot accom-
panied by Mr. V. II. Brooke, and followed, for the second time, the pride of his heart and of his
hopes, to a premature grave.
Thus perished in the vigour of life and health, amid the brightest prospects of worldly success and
honours, in the most uninterrupted state of conjugal happiness, this excellent young man and zealous
antiquary. The eminence of his talents could only be exceeded by the virtues of his heart. After a
lapse often years, the pen which has composed this imperfect notice of himself and his works, renews
the subject with a freshness of sorrow and an undiminished regard, only consoling himself by the re¬
flection, that severe and awful as the change was to the survivors, for the deceased, in the mercy of
God, it must have been a happy one. He contributed this epitaph to the stone which his widow placed
“ Sacred to the memory
(dear to every friend who knew him)
of
Charles Alfred Stothard,
Historical Draughtsman,
and Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries,
eldest surviving son of Thomas Stothard, Esq. R, A.
“While pursuing his professional researches in the adjoining church, he was
unfortunately killed by a fall, on the 28th May, m the year of our Lord 1821,
in the 3 1th year of his age. As a laborious investigator of the ancient
Sepulchral Monuments and other historical vestiges of this Kingdom, which
he illustrated by his faithful and elegant pencil, he was pre-eminent. As a
man, though gifted with the most solid ability, he was humble, modest, un¬
ostentatious; an example of benevolence and simplicity of heart ; a Christian
by faith, as he proved by that essential demonstration — his works. Thus
awfully bereft of such a partner, what words shall describe the deep, the
bitter sorrow of his widow, who stood not by to pay him the last sad offices,
but while he perished thus untimely, expected his return, and shortly to
bless him with a first child. She has erected this poor monument to his
memory ; a living one exists in her heart. Reader, profit bv this sad, but
INTRODUCTION. 23
doubtless, in the wisdom of God, salutary and merciful lesson ; for it is better
that the virtuous should be thus suddenly cut off than the wicked.
“ ‘ Watch ye, therefore, for ye know not when the Master of the House
cometh ; at even, at midnight, at cock-crowing, or in the morning; lest coming
suddenly he find you sleeping.’ Mark, iii. 35, 36.”
Blanche, Mr. C. Stothard’s posthumous daughter, was born on the 29th June, 1821, but one
month after the fatal accident which suffered her not to be greeted in this world by a father’s smile.
She lived little more than seven months, when she was called to join him, we humbly trust, in immor¬
tality. She died on the 2d February, 1822. Mrs. Stothard’s (now Mrs. Bray’s) narrative of these
heavy afflictions, in the Memoir which we have so often quoted, is full of that deep and sincere feeling
which gives force and beauty to language, and subdues to sympathy every chord of the human heart.
Over the narrow but peaceful tenement where the mortal remains of the Author of this Work
repose, until the last trumpet shall again, at his Creator’s will, arouse them into life, four rose-
trees and a juniper-plant were flourishing in 1825. The lovers of the elegant arts, and historical
science, will add to these an ever green laurel.
aaaac
THE
OF
GREAT BRITAIN.
l\ogtv, Bisijop of gsaltstmvj).
This is a coffin lid, on which is represented in very low relief a Bishop attired in his
pontifical ornaments, in the act of giving the benediction, and trampling on a dragon or
serpent ; the ordinary mode with the sculptors of the middle age of expressing the
fulfilment of the prophecy against Satan, by the power given through Christ to the
Ministers of his Church. The figure is surrounded by a border of interlacing scroll
work, in which arc introduced hands of beads. These characteristic points shew the
sculpture to have been executed in the twelfth century, and the effigy may, with much
confidence, be asserted to be that of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. This ecclesiastic was
originally the priest of a small chapel in the vicinity of Caen in Normandy, which Prince
Henry, the third son of William the Conqueror, chanced to enter while engaged in a
hunting party. He was so pleased with the alacrity with which this obscure priest got
through the service that he took him into his Household, and, on coming to the Crown,
made him his Chief Counsellor, his Chancellor, Dean of St. Martin le Grand, London,
and Bishop of Salisbury ; in short he was invested by Henry I. with authority, honours,
and riches. Under the following reign of Stephen the picture was reversed, and he
bitterly experienced “ the wretchedness of that poor man who hangs on Princes’ favours."
Overwhelmed by reverses of fortune he expired in a state of phrensy on the 11th of
December 1139, and was buried in the Cathedral of Sarum, there can he little doubt, in
the tomb which has been above described. This, with his remains, were afterwards
translated to the new Church, and is placed on the South side of the nave.
©rofFiTj) plantagenet, (Earl of 9itjou.
Geoffrey Earl, or rather, according to the foreign style, Count of Maine and Anjou
(called Plantagenet from the sprig of Planta Genista or Broom which he was accus¬
tomed to wear in his cap *), was son of Fulk the preceding Earl, King of Jerusalem, by
Eremburga, daughter of Helias Count of Mans.
As the Earldom of Anjou was contiguous to Normandy he became an eligible husband
for Matilda or Maud, the daughter of Henry the First, King of England, and widow of
the Emperor Henry the Fourth. They were married at Mans, April 3, 1127. By the
issue of this union the Saxon blood was restored in the succession of English monarchs,
for Henry the Second, their only son, was great-grandson, by his mother’s side, to
Margaret, the sister of Edgar Atheling. Geoffrey Plantagenet died in 1150, and was
buried before the Crucifix in the Church of St. Julien in Mans.f The beautiful
enamelled tablet, from which the plate is etched, is preserved in the Museum at Mans,
where it was found by the Author of this work in the year 1817. It had formerly been
suspended in the Church of St. Julien, but disappeared during the Revolution. It was
fortunately, however, preserved from the melting pot, to which the unsparing hands of
the Revolutionists had consigned it. On this singularly curious and ancient memorial
the Earl appears at full length, under an arch decorated with semicircular ornaments, and
supported on either side by a pillar with a capital of foliage* lie wears a steel cap,
in form like the Phrygian, enamelled with a leopard of gold. In his right hand is a
sword, his left supports a shield, which is adorned with golden leopards on a blue field,
similarly to the cap. This shield is of the long kite shape, and reaches from the
shoulders to the feet ; it bears a striking comparison with those represented on the
Bayeux Tapestry, save that the upper part is not curved, but the angles are rounded.
He wears an under-tunic of light blue ornamented with borders of gold, an upper one of
* It is said that Fulk. the first nf that name Earl of Anjou, his ancestor, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to
atone fur l„s sms, ami was scourged before the Holy Sepulchre with a rod made of broom ; whence he assumed
it as his cognizance, and it was adopted as a family distinction by his descendants,
f Sandford gives the following as his epitaph :
Quatenus Anglieis turmis conregnet in tevum.
J An arch of .nr, similar dasign i, a, ill fo,mi„s the fr„„,i,,ieee t= lha very anci.nt eh.ncel of Ihc
church of Compton, near Guildford, in Surrey.
J Similar cap. appear on th« head, of S.aphaa and Hear, II. he worn «,d„ ,he chain mail. See the
reverse of their seals in Speed.
~TOETVO
r • • ' !
a W\
1
f i <vi
i m
III '
■ BfejJS
sfed
GEOFFREY PiAKTAOKSmi, EARJ. OPMAIHB AN® AtUOV. BUKO. 13 48.
from ttuEnjlincIIrd Thbipl Auanaefep in the Church ol- S'-.illljilu 1*1 Moan.
green ; his mantle is of light blue, anti is lined with vair ; above the mantle and over the
right shoulder is his belt. The whole ground-work of the tablet is curiously filled up
with small trefoil, scroll, and other ornaments. Over the head of the figure is this
inscription :
ENSE TVO, PIIINCEPS, PREDONVM TVRBA FVGATVR,
eccle'iis y* hvies pace vigente datvr.
The heraldic bearings on this tablet, by some thought to be griffins (though they are
in all probability leopards or lions), have excited much attention from their being perhaps
the earliest specimen extant of armorial bearings. “It is not easy to fix the time
when heraldic bearings assumed a more decided character than in the Bayeux tapestry,
but there appears to exist some proof that they were used in the time of Henry the First.
John, a monk of Marmonstier, in Tourainc, who was living in the time of Geoffrey
Plantagenet, on that prince’s marriage with Matilda, daughter of Henry the First, at
Mans, describes him, previous to his being knighted, as having put on him a hauberk
and stockings wrought with double mailles, golden spurs fastened to his feet, a shield
emblazoned with little golden lions hung about his neck, and a helmet glittering with
precious stones upon his head.” This description accords very well with the charge
emblazoned on his shield. “ The number of lions is not certain, as but one half of the
shield is seen, yet it seems probable there were six ; 3, 2, and 1, as we find his bastard
grandson M illiam Longespee, on his tomb in Salisbury Cathedral, bearing on his shield,
in a field Azure, six lions Or, 3, 2, and 1.”* There can he little doubt, from the style in
which the tablet is executed, but this memorial of Geoffrey Plantagenet was made about
the time when lie died. It appears to have been no unusual mode at this period of
commemorating the defunct. A similar enamelled tablet or picture, representing Ulgcr
Bishop of Angers, who died in 1141), formerly was suspended over his tomb in the Church
of St. Maurice at Angers, but was destroyed during the Revolution.
* See Essay by the Author of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain on
pesfi'y, Archteolngia, vol. xix. p. 1SS.
the Antiquity of the Bayeux Ta-
goccljm tic Batlttl, Btoijop of gwlfefcuvp.
This, like the effigy of Jocelyn’s predecessor in the See of Salisbury, is carved in low
relief on a coffin lid. Jocelyn de Bailul was of a noble Norman family, and much in
favour with King Henry the Second, whose views he espoused when the King sought to
limit the extravagant privileges of the clergy by the constitutions of Clarendon. This
drew upon Jocelyn the resentment of Becket, subjected him to ecclesiastical censures,
and as much persecution as could by those means be directed against him. Alter the
murder of Becket, nothing short of Jocelyn’s entire submission could make his peace
with the Pope. He retired into a Cistertian monastery, where he died on the 11th
September 1184. He left a natural son, Richard Fitz-Jocelyn, Archdeacon of Sarum,
Bishop of Bath and Wells, and afterwards elected to the See of Canterbury, but who died
before his election was confirmed. The effigy of this Bishop represents him standing
under an arch, the pastoral staff' in the left hand, the right elevated in the act of giving
the benediction. Mr. Gough, who conceived this to be the tomb of Bishop Roger, in
1770 procured it to be raised above the level of the floor of the nave, and was thus
enabled to read the inscription which runs round the perpendicular sides of the edge of
the stone. This commences at the head of the figure, and is as follows :
FLENT IIODIE SALESBERIE, QV1A DECIDIT ENSIS
JVSTITIE, PATER ECCLESIE SALISBIRIENSIS,
DVM VIGVIT MISEROS ALVIT, FASTVSQVE POTENTVM
NON TIMVIT, SED CLAVA FVIT TERRORQVE NOCENTVM,
DE DUC1BVS, DE NOBILIBVS PRIMORDIA DVXIT
FRINC1PIBVS, PROPEQUE TIBI (1VI GEMMA RELVX1T.
The line on the chasuble, “ . affer opem, devenies in idem,” is an admonition to the
living to pray for the soul of the defunct, remembering their own mortality. Round the
border of the same vestment was another inscription, which is now illegible.
Mr. Gough has endeavoured, by assigning particular allusions to the different lines of
this inscription, to prove that this was the effigy of Bishop Roger; but these allusions,
except in one point, are in a style of general compliment, which would apply equally
well to Jocelyn as to Roser, while two circumstances lead confidently to the conclusion
that this is the monument of Jocelyn : first, the only precise fact recorded in the epitaph,
<£ de ducibus, de nobilibus primordia duxit principibus,” seems at direct variance with
the received history of Bishop Roger, while it perfectly accords with that of Bishop
Jocelyn. The house of Bailul, or Bailleul, anglicised Baliol, whence lie was descended,
was one of the noblest in Normandy, distinguished for their voyages to the Holy Land,
and their share in the conquest of England. The second circumstance is equally strong
for its appropriation to Jocelyn. In searching the Chapter Records of Salisbury, several
deeds were found bearing the seal of Bishop Jocelyn, the figure on which exactly
resembled that on the monument which we are describing, and totally differed from
that of earlier date which we have assigned to Bishop Roger* The present situation
of this effigy is on the south side of the nave of the cathedral church.
* See DodsworUi's Historical Account of the Episcopal Sc c anil Cathedral Church of Suiitm or Salisbury, p. 191.
J)cnn> tijc grccmu.
The destruction of our royal effigies at Fontevraud during the Revolution had
been so confidently asserted, that the known devastation of antiquities of this cha¬
racter in France, did not appear to be a sufficient reason to warrant the assertion ;
but on investigation, by every inquiry it was found to rest on no better foundation,
and still wanted confirmation. As the addition of these, to commence our series
appeared so desirable an acquisition, and the reflection at the same time presenting
itself, that by some fortunate chance they might still be preserved, no other induce¬
ments were wanting for hazarding a journey to ascertain their fate. An indiscri¬
minate destruction, which on every side presented itself in a track of three hundred
miles, left little to hope on arriving at the Abbey of Fontevraud ; but still less, when
this celebrated depository of our early kings was found to be but a ruin. Contrary,
however, to such an unpromising appearance, the whole of the effigies were dis¬
covered in a cellar of one of the buildings adjoining the abbey. For amidst the
total annihilation of every thing that immediately surrounded them, these effigies
alone were saved ; not a vestige of the tomb, and chapel which contained them,
remaining. Fortunately, there is nothing destroyed for us to regret. When the
fury of the Revolution had ceased, it appears that the veneration these memorials of
royalty had for ages excited, led to their removal from the ruined church to a place
of more security. They were accordingly conveyed to an octangular isolated
building, called the Tour d’Evraud, where they remained safe and undisturbed for
eighteen ’ years ; but the church having been very lately converted to a prison, and
this receptacle being found convenient for some purposes of the new establishment,
they were again removed to their present situation, where they are subject daily to
be wantonly defaced by the lowest class of prisoners, and where, if they are suffered
to remain, they must soon be destroyed.
The effigies are four in number: — Henry II.; his Queen, Eleanor cle Guienne;
Richard I. ; and Isabel d’Angouleme, the Queen of John. Considering their age,
and the vicissitudes they have undergone, they are in excellent preservation. They
have all been painted and gilt three or four times; and from the style of the last
paintiu"- it is probable it was executed when the effigies were removed from their
original situation in the choir* It is this painting which Montfancon has described,
and it has consequently misled him.f _ „
Our present subject, Henry II., the son of the Empress Matilda, and Geoffrey
Plantagenet Earl of Anjou, died at the Castle of Chinon, nigh Fontevraud, October,
1189, in the 57th year of his age, and 35th of his reign. A modern French writer,
* B, Jeanne Bapti.te de Bourbon, natural daughter of Henry IV. in 1638, who at the same time erected a
tomb to contain the whole of them. , „ , . ,, „T
t For the dove, having been ignorantly painted of a tab colour instead of wh.to. Monlfancon says,
ne sai que signifient les deux marques rondes qu il a
jewels on the gloves, the marks of royalty.
r les deux maim." Not conceiving they w
who states as his authorities MSS. preserved in the ecclesia stical archives, says
“ the body of the unfortunate monarch, vested in his royal habits, the crown of gold
on his head, anil the sceptre in his hand, was placed on a bier richly ornamented, and
borne in great state to the celebrated Abbey of Foutevraud, which he had chosen as
the placeof his interment, and there set in the naveof the great church, where he was
buried.” This account partly agrees with that given by Matthew Paris, who says,
“ But on the morrow, until he should be carried to be buried, he was arrayed in the
royal investments, having a golden crown on the head, and gloves on the hands,
boots wrought with gold on the feet, and spurs, a great ring on the finger, and a
sceptre in the hand, and girt with a sword, he lay with his face uncovered.” When
we examine the effigy, we cannot fail of remarking that it is already described by
these two accounts; the only variation being in the sword, which is not girt, but lies
on the bier on the left side, with the belt twisted round it. It therefore appears,
that the tomb was literally a representation of the deceased king, as if he still lay in
state. Nor can we, without supposing such was the custom, otherwise account for
the singular coincidences between the effigy of King John on the lid of his coffin and
his body within it, when discovered a few years since.
The crown on the head of Henry II. has been probably many years broken, as
appears from some remains of an injudicious attempt to restore it with plaister of
Paris. It is represented without those clumsy additions in the etchings. The right
hand, on which was the great ring, is also broken; but still contains a portion of the
sceptre, which, if we may judge from its stays on the breast, must have been
remarkably short. The character of ihe face is strongly marked by high cheek¬
bones and projecting lips and chin ; the beard is painted, and penciled like a mini¬
ature, to represent its being close shaven; the mantle is fastened by a fibula on the
right shoulder, its colour has been, like the cushion under the head, of a deep reddish
chocolate ; the dalmatic is crimson, and appears to have been starred or flowered
with gold. The mantle probably was originally ornamented in a similar manner.
The boots are green, ornamented with gold, on which are fastened with red leathers
the gold spurs. The whole is executed in free stone, and in a style much re¬
sembling the seals of the time, but infinitely superior to what we should expect,
judging by the effigy of King John, which in comparison with this is a very inferior
production. We are told that Henry II. had on his tomb these lines:
t Inc Tumulus, cui non s.
Res
cui fuit ampla brevis.
Details. — Plate I. Fig. 1. Pattern on the bier.
(Eleanor nr ©incmtc, Queen of J)cnn> tijc gscconti.
Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Guienne, was the eldest daughter and heiress of William V.
Duke of Aquitaine, by Eleanor of Chastelleraut, his wife. She was first married to
Louis VII. of France, but, owing to some dissension which arose between them, Louis
applied to the papal see for a divorce : and it appearing that there was consanguinity
between the parties, they were separated by authority of the Church in Easter 1 151.
Henry the Second, then Duke of Normandy, thought that a marriage with the Countess
of Poitou and Aquitaine offered too large an accession of dominion and political power
to his crown to be neglected, and so promptly took his measures that he espoused her
the following Whitsuntide. She hore King Henry six sons and three daughters. Their
eldest daughter Matilda married Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony; among the issue of
which marriage was Otho the Fourth, Emperor of Germany, and William, progenitor of
the Dukes of Brunswick, who assumed as his arms the two lions which his grandfather
Henry bore, and which seem to have been the ensign of the early English Kings of the
Norman race as Dukes of Normandy. Eleanor thwarting the amours of her husband,
and taking part against him with their elder son Prince Henry (who had received the
titular and aspired to the actual honours of King during his father’s lifetime), incurred
his deep displeasure, and, according to Matthew Paris, banished from his bed, passed
sixteen years of her life in close confinement. On the death of Henry in 1189, and the
accession of her third son Richard to the Crown, he invested her with sovereign
authority during his absence in Normandy ; and her first act was a very general release
of malefactors from confinement. She accompanied Richard to the Holy Land, died
in 1204, the sixth year of the reign of her son John, and was buried at Fontevraud.
She lies, like the other effigies at that place, upon a bier, attired in her royal vestments,
with a crown upon her head.
lung l\trl)iirt tljr jfivst,
This chivalrous monarch, the fame of whose personal courage has been handed down to
posterity in his surname, Cceur dc Lion, was the third son of Henry the Second, by
Eleanor dc Guienne, his queen, and was born at Oxford, at the royal palace there, in the
year 1157. He was created Earl of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine by his father, during
his lifetime, and at his death in 1181 succeeded to the Crown of England. In his
childhood he was contracted in marriage to Alice, daughter of Henry the Seventh, King
of France. This engagement was, however, never completed; her chastity lying under
an imputation with his own father, he refused to ratify it, and gave 100, 000/. to King
Philip, her brother, as a compensation for its non-performance. She became the wife
of William Earl of Ponthieu, by whom she had issue Joan of Castile, mother of Queen
Eleanor, wife of Edward the First.
His second wife was Berengaria, or Berenquelle, daughter of Sanchez the Fourth,
King of Navarre. She was married to Richard in 1190, at the Island of Cyprus, when
on his way to the Holy Land, whither she accompanied him.
King Richard received the scrip and staff" of pilgrimage from the Archbishop of
Tours, and proceeding to Marseilles, embarked on the 7th August 1190, on his expedi¬
tion to the Holy Land. His first exploit in his way was the capture of the city of Messina,
in Sicily, in order to release his sister Joan, widow of William the Good, the late king of
that island, then kept in confinement by Tancred, the bastard and usurper. Richard en¬
forced his demands of remuneration for his sister’s claims, by keeping possession of Messina
until they were satisfied. These were, that Tancred should permit her to enjoy the dower
settled on her by the late King her husband; that she should have, according to the
custom of Sicilian queens, a chair of gold, a table of gold twelve feet in length and a
foot and a half in breadth, two golden tressels to support the same, a silk tent in which
two hundred knights might be entertained, twenty-four silver cups and as many dishes,
six thousand measures of wheat, a proportionate quantity of barley and wine, an hundred
armed galleys, properly appointed, and victualled for two years. Tancred compounded
for these dues by the payment of twenty thousand ounces of gold to Richard as his
sister’s dower, twenty thousand more to Richard himself, to be quit of any further
claims, besides a gift to him of four large ships and fifteen galleys. Setting sail from
Sicily, accompanied by his mother Eleanor and his betrothed wife, his fleet was scattered
in a tempest between the islands of Rhodes and Cyprus. The ship which contained his
sister Joan and his intended bride, was barbarously excluded from sheltering in Cyprus
by Isaac Comnenus, the reigning prince, who held it under the Greek emperors.
Richard promptly avenged this affront, by subduing the island, taking Isaac prisoner,
and ultimately transferring the sovereignty of Cyprus to Guy dc Lusignan. Here
Richard espoused his queen Berengaria. In the beginning of April 1191 Richard pro¬
ceeded to the relief of the Christian army encamped before Acre. In his voyage he fell
in with a Saracen dromond, or huge argosie, sent by Saladin, the brother of Saladin the
Soldan of Babylon, laden with immense treasure, military stores, and provisions, and
fifteen hundred warriors, for the succour of the Infidels besieged in Acre. Among the
articles for offensive warfare were a quantity of the celebrated Greek fire, and vessels full
of venomous serpents. This unwieldy vessel was promptly assailed on all sides by the
King’s light galleys ; her bottom was pierced with holes by the augers of certain dextrous
divers, and she was soon filled with water to her upper works. Thirteen hundred
of her crew were consigned by the King’s order to the waves ; two hundred remained
his prisoners. Richard arrived at Acre in the middle of June, with his gallant fleet of
two hundred and fifty ships and sixty galleys, and aided so vigorously the combined
forces of Christendom in the prosecution of the siege, that on the twelfth of the follow¬
ing July the city surrendered. The defection of Philip King of France did not damp
the ardour of Richard: he marched against Jerusalem, and in sight of that city attacked
and overthrew the caravan of Saladin, which came laden from Babylon, under an escort of
ten thousand men. A truce being concluded with Saladin, Richard bent his steps
homeward, to regulate the domestic concerns of his Realm, and to procure reinforcement
for his crusading host. In his way lie was shipwrecked near Aquileia, but getting
safely to land he disguised himself as a merchant, and assuming the name of Hugh, was
making his way through the Austrian dominions, when he was discovered and made
prisoner by Leopold Duke of Austria, who owed him an old grudge for an indignity
offered to his banner at Acre. Richard was given up by him to the Emperor of Ger¬
many, of whom he was obliged to purchase his liberty by a heavy ransom, 130,000 marks
of silver. The old disagreement between Richard and Philip of France continuing
unallayed, a war between them was the consequence, and Richard gave him a signal
overthrow at the famous battle of Gisors, in Normandy, where the French king narrowly
escaped with his life. The lion-hearted Richard on this occasion eminently displayed
his intrepid character, and exclaimed after the field was won, “ Not we but ‘ God and our
Right’ have vanquished France at Gisors the same emphatic words were by one of his
successors coupled with the armorial ensigns of the British Crown.
Shortly after it was Richard’s fate to lose his life in a petty feud. The Count of Li¬
moges, a dependant on the Dukes of Aquitaine, having found a treasure on his land,
Richard, as lord paramount, laid claim to the whole, and to enforce his right, besieged
the Castle of Chaluz, where it was supposed the treasure was deposited. He was wounded
by a quarrel, from the steelbow of an arbalister on the ramparts of the Castle. Hear¬
ing the twang of the implement, he stooped forward to avoid the shot, and in conse-
guence of that movement received it in his left shoulder. The barbed head of the arrow
remained in the wound, the severity of which was much increased by the attempts of an
unskilful surgeon to cut it out. The Castle being taken, and the archer brought
before the King, he justified the deed, by saying that Richard with his own hand had
killed his father and his two brothers. The King, with a true magnanimity, commanded
him to be set at liberty with a reward of a hundred shillings ; an order basely disrc-
carded after tlie King’s death by one of bis mercenary chiefs, who caused the arbahstc
to be flayed alive and hanged. Richard having received the Sacraments of the Church,
died in the fortress above-mentioned on Tuesday 6th April 11!)!), after a reign of nine
years and nine months. He directed his heart to be carried to his faithful city of Rouen
for interment in the Cathedral ; his bowels, as his ignoble parts, to the rebellious Poic-
tevins ; and his body to be buried at the feet of his father Henry the Second at Fontevraud.
This gave rise to the following Leonine verses, which are cjuoted by Matthew
Paris as having been written for him by some rhiiner of the day by way of epitaph, in
which the idea that so mighty a ruin was too great for one place, is not destitute of
point :
Pictavus exta ducis sepelit lellusquc Chalutis ;
Corpus dat claudi sub marmore Fontis Ebraudi ;
Neustria, tuque tegis cor inexpugnabile regis ;
Sic !oca per trina tc sparsit tanta ruina,
Non fuit hoc funus cui sufficcret locus unus.
Over his gilt monument, according to Sandford, was the following inscription (pro¬
bably on a suspended tablet, being a summary of his most celebrated exploits :
Scribitur hoc lumulo, rex auree, laus tua tota
Aurea, materia; conveniente nota :
Laus luaprima fuit Siculi, Cyprus altera, dromo
Tertia, caravana quarta, suprema Ioppe ;
Supprcssi Siculi, Cyprus pcssundnta, dromo
Mersus, caravana capta, retenta Ioppe.
The figure of Richard the First reposes on a bier covered with drapery. He wears a
crown, the trefoils of which are filled up with a honeysuckle pattern, which various
architectural remains of the same period shew to have been then much in vogue. His
royal mantle is painted blue with an ornamental gold border, his dalmatic or supertunic
is red, his tunic is white,* and under this appears his camise or shirt. The boots arc
adorned with broad ribband like stripes of gold, which appear to have been intended to
express the earlier mode of chaussure sandals. The leather of the spurs are visible.
Details. Plate I. 1. The border of the mantle. 2. Girdle. 3. The border of the dalmatic. 4'. The
border of the tunic. 5. The border of the camisole or shirt. 6. Ornaments on the cover of the feretrum or
bier. Plate II. The Crown.
* These three garments were ecclesiastical, answering to the bishop's chasuble or cope, the deacon’s dalmatic,
the subdeacon's tunic. The Church herself perhaps originally derived them from the imperial costume, in
order to denote the spiritual authority of her ministers.
10
•jo.orn 'Jtfli nawvwsiniy
0
THE Templars, whose house (the old Temple) was in Holborn, removed thence to
Fleet-street, in the reign of Henry II., when, it is most probable, the erection of
the Church commenced; for we find by an inscription now destroyed, that in 1 185
it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary by the Patriarch Eraclius. In 1240, it is
recorded, another Church was finished and dedicated. From the two distinct styles
of architecture of the above periods, now existing in the building, it seems highly
probable that the circular part was the original Church, and it is here we find the
effigies generally known by the name of the Knights Templars.
Matthew Paris says that William Marshal, the elder Earl of Pembroke, was
buried in the middle of the church of the New Temple; and near their father were
also interred two of his sons, William and Gilbert, successive Earls of Pembroke.
And from other authorities, we learn that Geoffrey Magnaville, Earl of Essex,
and William Plantagenet, fourth son of Henry III., were likewise buried in this
Church. The effigies, the subject of the present investigation, occupy the centre
of the pavement, and are parted off' within two enclosures, each surrounded by a
low iron railing: the figures are laid side by side, as close to each other as it
is possible to place them. In this arrangement it will be seen that there is not
that succession in the order of their dates we should have found had this been
their original situation. In the South enclosure it may be particularly noticed,
where the only three knights, with emblazoned shields are placed together, although
of all the figures thus enclosed, they are, in point of date, the most remote from each
other. That they have been displaced receives confirmation from a recent circum¬
stance, for during the late repairs of the church, by excavating the ground beneath
the S. enclosure, it was discovered that merely these coffin lids (of which the figures,
according to ancient custom, were a part) remained, neither the bodies they inclosed,
nor the coffins to which they were attached, being found. This want of original
locality is probably the cause that we are now unable to identify with certainty any
of the persons said to have been here entombed. From the evidence of Camden,
Stow, and Dugdale, it appears these changes have taken place since their time.
Camden, who does not allude to their situation or arrangement, says, that William
Marshal, the elder, and his two sons, William and Gilbert, were here buried, and
that upon the tomb of William the elder, he read on the upper part “ Comes Pen-
“ brochiee," and upon the sides this verse, “ Miles erarn Martis, Mars multos vicerat
“ armis.” Stow speaks of “ eleven monuments of noblemen in the round walk of this
“ church ; eight of them images of armed knights, five lying cross-legged, as men vowed
“ to the Holy Land against the Infidels and unbeleeving Jews; the other three straight-
“ legged ; the rest are coaped stones, all of gray marble.” Dugdale says, “ within a
“ spacious grate of iron in the midst of the round walk under the steeple do lye eight
“ statues in military habits each of them having large and deep shields on their left
“ armes, of which five are cross-legged. There are also three other grave-stones lying
“ about five inches above the level ground ; on one of which is a large escocheon
“ with a lion rampant* graved thereon.” It is clear from Dugdale's account that the
whole of the effigies were in his time within one enclosure, and he likewise agrees
with Stow in their number and positions, and also to the number of coped stones.
There are now, however, nine effigies, six of them cross-legged, and but one coped
stone. This discrepancy is accounted for by a record somewhere existing, which
states that the cross-legged figure bearing on his shield the arms of Ross, was
brought from Yorkshire, and placed with the other effigies in the Temple Church, f
and it is almost conclusive from the situation of this figure, that whenever its
removal took place, the whole of these statues received their present arrangement,
and the two coped stones wanting were taken away or destroyed. Upon examining
the effigies, to whom the inscriptions given by Camden could possibly be applied, it
was found that they were carved in a stone best known under the name of Sussex
marble, upon the surface time had effected scarcely any change, and the sides (where
inscriptions are sometimes found) buried below the pavement, were ascertained to be as
smooth and perfect in most places, as when finished by the sculptor; consequently
had the inscriptions ever existed on these coffin lids, they must have been detected.
This contradiction to Camden’s account cannot readily be reconciled, unless the in¬
scriptions in question were found elsewhere, or on the coped stone wanting, described
by Dugdale as having graved upon it an escutcheon, charged with a lion rampant.
In the present state of these memorials, all, therefore, that relates to the identity of
the persons represented must be conjecture, founded alone on such circumstances as
the effigies themselves may elicit.
The most ancient of these statues are IN0'. 1, 4, and 7. The first is said to represent
Geoffrey Magnaville; and the other two appear to be of the same date with each
other. The most remarkable circumstance that distinguishes these three figures
arises from their wearing the sword on the right side ; the repetition argues against
its being accidental, and it is possible this may have been a fashion peculiar to the
early Knights Templars borrowed from their near neighbours, the infidels. If the
effigy called Geoffrey Magnaville, really represents that nobleman, this distinction in
him on this ground would be easily accounted for, as he received from the Templars,
when dying, the habit of their order. It may be added, as an argument for the high
* The arms of the Marshals Earls of Pembroke were, party per pale or, and vert, a lion rampant
gules.
t The note containing the authority for this fact has been mislaid and lost.
antiquity of these statues, that they arc not like any others at present known. The
most remarkable will be found in this work, arranged with the other subjects in chro¬
nological order; and first,
©roffrej) Dc jHagnalitllf, or JWartDriuUe, Carl of Csstv.
This effigy is perhaps rightly assigned to Geoffrey de Mandcville, Earl of Essex. I lis
grandfather of the same name came over with the Norman William, and was rewarded
for his services in the invasion and conquest of England, by the gift of numerous lord-
ships, which descended to William his son, who married Margaret, daughter of Endo
Dapifcr, or Steward, to William the First. Geoffrey, the supposed subject of this effigy,
was their son and heir, and in the 5th of King Stephen fined for the livery of his inhe¬
ritance. He was hereditary Constable of the Tower of London, and was created by
Kin- Stephen, by charter, Earl of Essex. He however took part against Stephen with
the Empress Matilda ; and she also not only constituted him by charter Earl of Essex,
hut made him hereditary Sheriff of London, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire ; and gave
him, moreover, the lands' of Eudo Dapifcr in Normandy, and Ins office of High Steward
as aL hereditary right. King Stephen in 1144 seized his person, and obliged him, as
the ransom for his liberty, to yield up possession of the Tower of London, and his
castles of Pleshey and Walden, in Essex ; the latter of which was his chief family seat.
The warlike Geoffrey having, however, procured his enlargement, associated to himself
certain mercenary hands, at the head of which he ravaged the royal demesnes, and plun¬
dered the Abbey of Ramsey. For this deed he incurred ecclesiastical excommunication.
Laying siege to the Castle of Burwell, in Cambridgeshire, he received a mortal wound
in his head from a dart, and finding his fortunes in this world set at rest, began to make
what provision he could, at so short a notice, for those of the next. Some Knights
Templar coming to him in his last moments, he endowed their fraternity with certain of
his lands, and put on the habit of their order as a passport to heaven. Still under sen¬
tence of excommunication, they could not give him Christian burial, but they hit upon
the notable expedient of wrapping his corpse in lead, and suspending it from a tree in
the garden of the Old Temple, in Holborn. After some time his absolution was
obtained from Pope Alexander the Third, and bis body was taken down and buried in
the round or most ancient part of the Now Temple Church, which now serves as a porch
to the main body of the building. This may account for the style of the effigy on his
coffin lid, which does not appear to have been made before the latter end of the twelfth
century. ’ The costnme of this effigy is exceedingly remarkable. On the head is a
cylindrical, or pot like, chapelle de fer. The hauberk of chain-mail envelopes his hands,
iuncj foljn.
Tins remarkable personage, the events of whose “troublesome reign” arc so conspicuous
in English History — and from whose disputes with his Barons we derive the foundation
deed of our liberties, Magna Charta, was horn at Oxford in 11(36. He was the youngest
son of Henry the Second, by his wife Eleanor of Guienne. His father jestingly called
him Sans Terre or Lackland, as if, being born last, lie had nothing left to give him.
He, however, created him Earl of Mortagnc in Flanders (latinized in the public acts of
the time “Comes Moritonic”), of Cornwall, and Gloucester, made him titular King of
Ireland, which grant was confirmed by the Pope, and endowed him with divers other
honours and possessions. His first wife was Alice, daughter of Humbert second Earl of
Mauricnne, now called Savoy ; this marriage was contracted by the parties in their
childhood, A. D. 1173, and John, by the death of Alice, lost his claim, in her right, to
her father’s possessions. His second wife was Isabella, daughter of Robert Earl of Glou¬
cester, natural son of King Henry the First; but falling desperately in love with Isabella,
daughter of Aymer Earl of Angoulesme, he procured a divorce from Isabella of Gloucester,
under the plea of having contracted a marriage with her within the third degree of con¬
sanguinity, and in 1200 married Isabella de Angoulesme. King John, in the midst of
public commotions (to which his misgovernment had largely contributed) and adverse
fortune, was cut off by death at Newark, on the 19th October 1216, in the eighteenth
year of his reign. His death is assigned by Matthew Paris, a writer who lived in bis
own time, to natural causes, induced by grief for the disaster which had occurred to his
army in crossing the Well Stream or Lincoln Washes, in his march to oppose Lewis son
of the King of France, who, backed by the discontented Barons, pretended to his King¬
dom. Having rested at Swineshead * Abbey, in his way to Newark, for a night, a story
gained ground that the final catastrophe of his life was accelerated by poison adminis¬
tered to him by a monk. There is no conclusive circumstantial evidence to support
this tale. Speed, the historian, asserts, that it was believed as a fact by his son King
Ilcnrv the Third, and refers, as his authority, to the reply made by that King to the
bold address of the Prior of the Hospitallers at Clerkcmvcll as related by Matthew
Paris. The expressions of that writer appear, however, too vague to support such an
inference.-}- The poisoning of John must, therefore, remain in the list of insoluble
historic doubts. His own will, preserved in the archives of the Dean and Chapter of
Worcester, merely says, that, being seized with a severe distemper he has no time for
* Nol Swinestead. Swinestead for Swineshead is an error which has crept into some received authorities owing
to the great similarity in name of these two different places in Lincolnshire. See Gent. Mag. June 18*25, p. 491.
f These arc given as the King's words, " O quid sibi vult istud, vos Anglici, vultis ne me sicut quondam
patrem meum a regno precipitate atque nccarc pracipitatum ?" Matt. Paris, Hist. Angl. edit. Watts, p. S54.
making particular arrangements. He appoints certain nobles and dignified ecclesiastics
his executors, directs them, in general terms, by donations to religious houses, and alms
to the poor, to make, for the good of his soul, reparation for injuries done to God and
holy Church. He annexes the usual anathema against any who shall infringe their
disposition of his property. He directs his body to be buried in the Church of St. Mary
and St. Wulstan, the Cathedral at Worcester. John, in his last moments, commended
his soul to God and St. Wulstan, his body, royally attired, was conveyed to Worcester,
over his head was placed a monk’s cowl, as a sort of cover for all his sins and a passport
to Heaven. He was interred between St. Oswald and St. Wulstan, whose graves are in
the Chapel of the Virgin at the eastern extremity of the Cathedral. Thence, in all pro¬
bability, they underwent translation to their present situation before the high altar in the
Choir.
The effigy of John, carved in grey marble, which forms the superstructure of his present
tomb, was originally the lid of the stone coffin that contained his remains, and in its first
position must have been placed on a level with the floor of the building within which lie
was interred. His head is adorned with a crown of state and supported by two Bishops,
undoubtedly intended for Oswald and Wulstan, between whose remains he, as before-
mentioned, actually reposed. He is represented as wearing a dalmatic of crimson lined
with green, the neck and cuffs edged with a gold and jewelled border ; bis tunic is yellow,
or cloth of gold ; he is girt with a belt ; on his hands arc jewelled gloves, a ring on the
middle finger of his right hand, which supports a sceptre, while his left grasps a sword.
He wears red hose, golden spurs, his feet have on them black shoes, and rest upon a lion.
The greater part of these details will be recognized as the ensigns of royalty.
Valentine Green, F. S. A. the historian of Worcester, published a pamphlet, giving
a very interesting account of the opening of the tomb of King John on the 17th of July
17!)7. Two walls of brick were found to form the supporters of the effigy of the monarch.
The coffin containing his remains, of which it had originally formed the top, was
covered with two strong elm planks, the intervening spaces between the sides of the
tomb and the effigy, being filled up with mortar and brick rubbish. These circumstances,
and the state of the King’s mortal relics, shewed that they had been at some previous
time disturbed, and seem to favour the conjecture of their having been translated from
the Lady Chapel in the Cathedral into the Choir, most probably about the time of
Henry the Seventh, as the altar tomb, on which the coffin lid lies, resembles the monu¬
ment of Prince Arthur in the same Church, and brick was much employed in architec¬
ture about that period. The skull was found turned completely round, and presented
what anatomists term the foramen magnum, or aperture through which the spinal marrow
passes. The upper jaw lay near the right elbow. The agreement of the dress on the
body with that of the effigy on the tomb was very remarkable, and shews, as in the
instance of Henry the Second's figure, that these effigies very faithfully represented the
defunct as he lay in state. John had, however, no crown on his head or gloves on his
hands ; in the place of the former was found the celebrated monk’s cowl, confirming the
minute accuracy of the Chronicles. This sacred envelope fitted the head very closely,
and had been buckled under the chin by straps, parts of which still remained. The
16
Effigy
body had been covered with a crimson robe of damask of strong texture, reaching from
the neck to the feet : see the effigy. Part of the embroidery was still perfect near the
left knee. His left arm was bent towards his breast, and the hand had grasped a sword
in the same manner as on the tomb. The cuff of this arm still remained lying on the
breast. The sword was much decomposed and its parts found at intervals down the left
side, the scabbard was much more perfect. The covering of the legs (the precise nature
of which was not ascertained) was tied round the ancles. These were probably the red
hose seen in the effigy. Thus lay royal John, as the immortal dramatizer of his reign
has said,
- but now a king — now thus —
A clod and module of confounded royally 1
Matthew Paris has given the following as his epitaph, which, like many others of the
same cast on our early Kings, had perhaps a place in the Chronicle, but not on the tomb :
Hoc in sarcophago scpelilur Regis imago,
Qui moriens mult urn sedavit in orbe tuniultum,
Et cui connexa dum vixit prdbra manebunt,
Hunc mala post mortem timor cst nc fata sequantur,
Qui legis base metuens dum cernis te moriturum,
Discilc quid rerum pariat tibi meta dierum.*
Details. Plate I. 1. The figure of the King with the original painting restored. 2. The shoe, spur
leather, Ac. Plate II. The Crown.
* Matt, Paris, Hist. Ang. edit. Watts, p. 288.
17
jsafjel VSlugoultame, ©utm of Jung; foijn.
Isabel d’Angoulesme was the third and last wife of King John. She was daughter
and inheritrix of Aymcr Earl of Angoulesme. Her mother was Alice, daughter of
Peter Lord of Courtenay, fifth son of Louis le Gros. She was married to King John in
the first year of his reign, and crowned his queen on the 8th of October. She had issue
by him, Henry (afterwards Henry III.) ; Richard Earl of Cornwall and King of the
Romans; Joan, married to Alexander the Second, King of the Scots; Eleanor, married
to William MareschaJ the younger, Earl of Pembroke ; then to Simon de Montfort, the
celebrated Earl of Leicester, who was slain at the battle of Evesham ; and lastly, Isabel,
who became the sixth and last wife of Frederick the Second, Emperor of Germany.
Surviving King John, she married Hugh Brun, Earl of Marche, and Lord of Lusignan
and Valence, in Poitou. By him she had several children, some of whom were much
advanced by Henry the Third, their half-brother, as William de Valence, created Earl of
Pembroke ; and Athclmar, raised to the Bishopric of Winchester. On the death of the
Earl of Marche she took the veil at the monastery of Fontevraud, and was at first uncere¬
moniously interred in the churchyard of that place ; her body was however taken up by
order of her son, Henry the Third, and the effigy which is delineated placed over her
remains.
Details. Plate I. The carnise, fermail, patterns on the border of the tunic and girdle. P'ate II. Pattern
of the border of the mantle.
Cfftgp tn tije CcinpU Cijurri), Hontiom
This figure must remain unappropriated. It is sculptured in a remarkably fine style.
The hands are crossed upon the breast, probably with the same design that the legs of
other effigies of this class are placed in a similar position, to indicate their militant pro¬
fession of the cross. The knight is habited in chain mail, and has a long surcoat of
plain drapery, the folds of which are remarkably well understood. The sword depends,
as in the effigy of De Mandeville, from the right side.
Details. The head with the chapelle de fer. The ornaments upon the belt.
(Queen 33erenprta.
THIS Princess was the queen of Richard I., and daughter of Sancho, king of
Navarre. It does not appear that she was ever in England, a circumstance not
surprising, when those events of her life known are considered, and that Richard
himself did not, altogether, pass more than eight months in his English possessions.
Berengaria is first spoken of as being brought to king Richard by his mother
Eleanor de Guienne, at Messina, when on his way to the Holy Land. She was
afterwards married to him, and crowned by the bishop of Evreux in the island of
Cyprus. From thence in company with Joan, the sister of Richard, she proceeded
to share with her husband the fatigues and perils of the Crusade : on her return to
Europe, sailing a few days before the king, she avoided the captivity into which
he subsequently fell, and retired to Poitiers. No more of her is known till after
the death of Richard Cceur de Lion, when on claiming her dower of King John at
Chinon in 1201, it appears she was so little recognized as the queen of Richard,
that it was not till after the testimony of the validity of her marriage, by those that
were present at its celebration, that John would satisfy her demand. Henry III., in
the 4th of his reign, 1219, compounded with her in lieu of her dower. The time of
her death is uncertain ; she was buried in the abbey of L’Espan, which she had
founded. Berengaria was celebrated as well for her eloquence as her beauty ; but
Richard has been charged by some historians with having neglected her.
Considering that amidst the havoc of monumental sculpture in France, the Royal
Effigies at Fontevraud have escaped destruction, it becomes still more remarkable,
that the same good fortune should have also attended this effigy, the last erection in
France commemorative of Royalty which belonged to the English monarchy. Al¬
though the tomb was overlooked in the heat of Revolutionary Vandalism, yet has it
ultimately suffered from the suppression of religious houses. On visiting the abbey of
L'Espan in 1816, near Mans, which contains this tomb, the church was found in a
ruinous state, and had been applied to the purposes of a barn. The architectural parts
of Queen Berengaria’s tomb were discovered lying about the place, but the effigy was
concealed beneath a considerable quantity of wheat. After many difficulties, and the
delay of a twelvemonth, it was uncovered, and found placed upright in a niche, in ex-
cel lent preservation, with the exception that the whole of the left arm was wanting.
By the effigy were lying the bones of the Queen, the silent witnesses of the sacri¬
legious, as well as recent demolition of the tomb. After some search, a great portion
of the arm belonging to the statue was recovered, but the remainder could no where
be found. As the destruction of this tomb bad been the work of no very distant
period, it was deemed interesting to seek the testimony of those engaged in it,
relative to what besides the bones had been discovered within the tomb. Three
men, who had assisted in this work of destruction, stated, that the monument with
the figure upon it, stood in the centre of the aisle at the east end of the church ;
that there was no coffin found within it, but a small square box, containing
bones, pieces of linen, some stuff embroidered with gold, and a slate, on which was
an inscription. The slate alluded to in this statement, was found in the possession
of a canon of the church of St. Julien, at Mans; upon it was engraven the inscrip¬
tion following, which accounts for the interior state of the tomb.
Mausoleum Istud Serenissime Berengarise Anglorum Regime bujus Cumoliii Fundatricis Indite restau-
ratum ct in augiistiorein locum hunc traiislatum fuit in eoq : recondita sunt Ossa luce quie reperta
fuerunt in Antique tumulo die 27 Maii Anno Domini 1072.*
Of the original situation of the tomb we must remain ignorant, but there can be
no doubt whatever, from the style of the architecture and sculpture, that it is of
the same date as the effigy, which may he placed towards the commencement of
the thirteenth century. As St. Julien, the principal church at Mans, is about to
be restored as nearly as possible to the same state it was in before the Revolution, it
lias been suggested to those superintending so praiseworthy a work, to remove and
place the monument of Berengaria in that church; and it appears probable that this
will be done.
The sides of the tomb are ornamented with deep quatrefoils. The effigy which
was upon it is in high relief. It represents the Queen with her hair unconfined, but
partly concealed by the coverchief, over which is placed an elegant crown. Iler
mantle is fastened by a narrow band crossing her breast; a large fermail or broach,
richly set with stones, confines her tunic at the neck. To an ornamented girdle
which encircles her waist, is attached a small aulmoniere, or purse, to contain alms.
The Queen holds in her hands a book, singular from the circumstance of having
embossed on the cover a second representation of herself, as lying on a bier, with
waxen torches burning in candlesticks by her side. This effigy, among many others,
is an instance of the incorrectness of the prints in Montfaucon's work on the Monu¬
ments of the French Monarchy. There is a representation, professed to have been
from this effigy, in which the hook is entirely left out, and the position of the arms
altered; that such unwarrantable liberties were taken, is now the more to he lamented,
as the greater part of the originals in Montfaucon’s collection no longer exist.
Details— Fig. 1. Part of the Crown:— 2. The fermail:— 3. The aulmoniere, as
attached to the girdle.
■ This Tomb of the most serene Berengaria, Queen of the Angles, the noble Founder of this Monastery,
was restored and removed to this more sacred place. In it were again deposited the bones which were
found in the ancient sepulchre, ou the 27th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1672.
‘’*#8
William i-ontscsprc, Carl of §s>alts1)tirj>.
William Longespce was the bastard son of Henry the Second by the celebrated Ro¬
samund de Clifford. His half brother, Richard the First, gave him in marriage Ela,
daughter and inheritrix of William Earl of Salisbury. He bore a conspicuous part in
the domestic divisions in the reign of King John, whose general he was against the rebellious
Barons in 1215, but in the following year went over to the party of Louis the son of the
French king. On the death of John he abandoned the cause of Louis, did homage to the
young King Henry the Third, and united with William Mareschal, the spirited Earl of
Pembroke, then Regent, in raising the siege of Lincoln. In 1219 he was with other
English noblemen at the siege of Damictta, which place was vigorously defended by the
Saracens, and the capture of which cost the Christian forces very dear. In 1224 he went
over into Gascony with Richard Earl of Cornwall, to subdue certain towns and castles to
obedience to King Henry their Lord. Returning in the following year they were over¬
taken at sea by a violent tempest ; after heating about for many nights and days they
were carried far out of their course ; and, giving themselves up for lost, committed all
their treasure and rich garments to the deep. While they remained in darkness and
despair, on a sudden the whole vessel was illuminated by the brilliant flame of a huge wax
taper, which appeared on the prow, and by it a damsel of exceeding beauty, who pro¬
tected the light with her garment from the force of the wind and rain. While the crew
were lost in wonder at this miraculous nocturnal vision, the Earl of Salisbury proclaimed
that tlicir thanks were due to the Blessed Virgin for this merciful interposition, at whose
shrine, on the day of his knighthood, he had offered a taper to be kept constantly burning
on the paiw celebration of the offices to her honour. The courage of the dispirited crew
revived, and the following morning they made the Isle of Rli6, near Rochelle. Salisbury
was speedily obliged to put to sea again, being informed of the design of the Lord of the
place to make him prisoner. He braved the adverse elements for three months longer
before lie reached England. Such is the relation of Matthew Paris. His long absence
gave occasion to a current report that he was lost at sea, and Hubert de Burgh, Justi¬
ciary of England, solicited to be allowed to match a kinsman of his, one Raymond, who
had a claim to the Earldom of Salisbury, with his rich widow, but she, like another
Penelope, rejected this suitor. At length the Earl landed unexpectedly in Cornwall, and
demanded satisfaction of the King against Hubert, whose relative had assailed the honour
of his wife. Hubert made submissive reparation by presents, but. is reported to have
taken the Earl off by poison, administered to him at a feast to which he had invited him
in simulated reconciliation.
21
Be this as it may, lie retired to his castle at Sarum, grievously sick, and sent for the
Bishop of the place to administer to him the Sacrament, on whose approach with the
host, he leaped from his bed with a rope round his neck, as a wretched malefactor, and
throwing himself on the floor, exclaimed he was a traitor to Almighty God, and refused
to arise until he had received absolution and the Sacrament. He died in March 122(5,
and was borne from the Castle to the Church, then newly erected at Salisbury. It is
pretended, that, although it blew a tempest during the funeral procession, the tapers borne
by the clergy in procession were not extinguished, so evident were the signs of his
acceptance with Heaven. He gave, by his last will, several valuable donations to the
Canons of Bradcnstoke, and property to endow a Carthusian monastery. Ela surviving
him, fulfilled his pious intentions, and also founded for the good of her own and her hus¬
band's soul the Abbey of Laycock, of which she became Abbess, died circa 12(53, and was
buried in the choir of the Church there. On the alterations which took place in Salis¬
bury Cathedral a few years since, the effigy of William Longespee was found entire. It
had originally heen buried in the Chapel of the Virgin, of whose patronage and favour he
thought himself so eminently the object. His remains were about 1790 removed to their
present situation in the nave, inclosed in a wooden tomb, on which his effigy rests.
Nothing can be finer than the style in which this representation of a grandson of
Geoffrey Plantagenet rests. The mails of his hauberk arc of golden hue. On his blue
surcoat are the lions rampant which are found on his ancestor’s shield. One remark¬
able character of this figure, is the flaccid, lifeless air with which it reposes on the coffin
lid which covered Salisbury’s mortal relics.
Details. Plate I. 1. The head with the hood of the hauberk, under which is probably a cylindrical defence
for the head. ‘2. The top of the hood. 3. The whole ligurc restored to its appearance as originally painted.
MONUMENT A I. EFIL'HGY.
Slnlvcrr Alilirr rbar-li Wor criirrfbirr
tit ©vent ^HaUicrtt 3l>k}> Clntvrl), fSLlortcstcr.
This unappropriated figure is of the same period with that of Longespee, Earl of Salis¬
bury. There are some remarkable peculiarities in the arms which it bears. In the right
hand is a formidable martel dc fer, horseman’s hammer, or pole-axe, formed on the same
principle as the pick-axe of the labourer, but shorter in the head, which measures about
nine inches, and has one cutting and one pointed end; apparently a most efficient
weapon for breaking defensive armour, beating down and wounding opponents. In the
left hand is a circular target, eighteen inches in diameter. On the left side is suspended
the broad-bladcd sword of the time.
a Uc JL'fslr.
There were two families in England of this denomination ; one deriving their appella¬
tive from the Isle of Wight, the other from the Isle of Ely. Of the last was the subject
of this effigy. The Dc Lisles possessed the manor of Rampton, in Cambridgeshire,
from the reign of Henry the Third to that of the third Edward. They had from Edward
the First a grant for a weekly market, and an annual fair in their manor of Rampton.
A moated site, and some considerable ruins, near the church of that place, point out
their residence. The effigy delineated is in the church. The mails on the hauberk of
this figure appear to be effaced, and the mouth is sadly distorted by the carving of some
idler. On the surcoat and shield is the coat of De Lisle, Or, a pale and two chevrons
Sable, cotised Gules. The feet rest on a lion.
Details. Plate I. 1. Ornaments of the pillow. 2. Scroll-work on the chevron. 3. Pattern on the belt.
I. The figure as originally painted. Plate II. 1. Hood of the hauberk. 2. Rings of the mail. 3. Pat¬
terns on the waist-belt and appendages. 4. Heel of the spur, and straps.
Itobrrt Dube of ilormant))).
Robert Duke of Normandy was the eldest son of William the First, King of England.
He claimed the Dukedom of Normandy of his father during his lifetime, prosecuted a
war against him on that account, unhorsed and wounded him, not knowing who he was,
at the battle of Gerbrai. On discovering a mistake which might have involved him in
the guilt of parricide, he made an humble submission to William, who was however
implacable, and denounced a curse against him, to which Robert’s subseejuent misfor¬
tunes are attributed by the historians of the time. On his deathbed the King disinhe¬
rited him of his claim of succession to the English crown, substituting his second sur¬
viving son, William le Roux, Rufus, or the Red, in his room.
An unsuccessful effort was made by Odo Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror’s half-
brother, to depose William Rufus, in favour of Robert, and shortly after William
retorted the design, by laying claim to and levying a war in the Duchy of Normandy.
In 109(5 the mania of the Crusade prevailed through Europe, and Robert Duke of
Normandy took the Cross. In order to defray the expence of equipping his forces for
the expedition, he mortgaged his Dukedom to his brother William. He distinguished
himself greatly by his chivalrous feats in the Holy Land. On one occasion he pushed
alone into the thickest of the Saracen host,* mortally wounded their Amiral, or Emir
and greatly contributed to a signal victory over them. On the capture of Jerusalem he
was chosen King of the Holy City by the leaders of the Christian army, but declined
the office in consequence of his views of succeeding to the Crown of England and
Godfrey de Bouillon was elected in his stead. On the death of Rufus, and the accession
of Henry the First, a second attempt of the friends of Robert to place him on the
English Throne proved abortive. Henry in his turn invaded Normandy, overcame his
brother at the battle of Tinchebray, made him prisoner, carried him to England, and
placed him in confinement. Relying on some unstable promises, and urged chiefly by
the Earl of C hester, he openly threatened vengeance, and escaped from his keepers ; but
his horse in his flight falling into a deep bog, he was retaken, committed to closer
custody, and, as is said, to prevent further attempts, barbarously deprived of sight by
order of his brother. Ibis was effected by the application of a red-hot brazen basin to
his eyes. Ihe fact, however, seems to rest upon questionable authority. In 1134
Robert had grown old in prison, bewailing his sins, and regarding his misfortunes and
* Matt. Paris, sub a
10.00.
confinement ns the punishment for having refused the kingdom of the Sacred City.
King Henry, touched with some compunctious feeling of respect, had been accustomed,
whenever he put on a new robe, to send one of the same stuff to his unhappy brother.
It chanced, as King Henry was trying on a scarlet vesture, that he rent the hood,
“ , g to° sma" for llis llead ; he ordered it to be taken to his brother, saying that he
had a shallower head than himself. The rent was not sewn up by the tailor, and
the blind Duke, trying on the garment, felt the rough edges of the aperture, and asked the
reason of its being brought him in that state 1 The messenger told him at once the
circumstances. “Alas!” exclaimed the venerable captive, whose mind had become
keenly sensitive by his misfortunes, “Alas! I live too long. See this my traitor
brother, my inferior by birth, an idle, petty clerk, the fraudulent possessor of my king¬
dom, who has imprisoned me, and in helpless captivity deprived me of my sight ! Me,
whose name was so renowned in arms ! He spurn, me, treats me with contempt, and
sends me, as his pensioner, for an alms-gift, his cast-off, ragged gowns ! " Then bursting
into a flood of bitter tears, he vowed never more to touch that food and drink which
prolonged his miserable existence; and in this resolution died. His body, by command
of King Henry the First, was reverently interred in the cathedral of Gloucester, before
the high altar. A chest or shrine of oak was some time after erected for him ; from
the costume of the incumbent figure, probably early in the following century. Sandford
says this memorial was very near being destroyed, when the Parliament army possessed
themselves of Gloucester and the cathedral against Charles the First. The scattered
parts of the monument were bought by a loyal individual of the soldiers, concealed until
the Restoration, when they were put together, and replaced in the cathedral. The figure
lies with the legs crossed, the attitude of a Crusader, habited in chain-mail, over which is
a long surcoat.
Details. Plate 1. Head with the mailed hood.
effiijp m Wbittuortlj Cijuvclj^avt), Duvijam.
This remarkable sculptured stone is about six feet in length. On the head of the
figure is a cylindrical helmet : the apertures for the sight, and the weldings, or joints,
are so arranged as to form a cross. This species of defence for the head was continued
in use, with a slight variation in the form, until a much later period than that of the
present subject.* This effigy is in an attitude of defence : the shield is borne before
the body, and in the right hand is the sword naked and erect. The surcoat extends
only to the knee. The mails of the hauberk have either not been expressed, or arc
obliterated. The legs are crossed, designating a Crusader, and they appear to trample
on a prostrate figure, intended, perhaps, for an infidel. At the right side is a coucliant
hound. The bearing on the shield is, harry, a b ordure charged with bezants. These
bearings do not belong to any family which are known to have existed in the North ;
the figure can therefore only be conjectured to represent one of the Lords of Whitworth.
In one or two other places in the County are effigies sculptured in exactly similar cos¬
tume, the work probably of the same hand.-}-
Details. Profile. Plate 11. The top of the helmet.
* See the real specimens extant. That of Edward the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral, delineated in
this work. Two belonging to the Lords of Cobham are in the chancel of Cobham Church, Kent.
f See Surtees’s Durham, vol. 111. p. 292, and the illustrative plates of that work.
MONl/M ENTAIL EFFIOY.
In Whitworth Cksrch Hurd Durham-
■vr*m
ISBtlltam Jftawscljal, Carl of ^Drmlnoftc.
This nobleman derived his surname from his ancestors exercising the offices of Marshal
in the King’s court. He was the son of John Mareschal, who performed that service for
King Henry the Second. He had an elder brother John, who on their father’s death
was confirmed by the same King in that honourable post. This John dying in the
reign of Richard the First, William became his heir. Richard gave him his ward
Isabella, daughter of Richard de Clare (surnamed Strongbow), the Conrpxeror of Ireland,
Earl of Striguil and Pembroke, in marriage, and with it the Earldom above mentioned.
He distinguished himself by his adherence to King John in his adversity, and on his
death became guardian to his son, Henry the Third. lie speedily marched against the
French Prince Lewis, the pretender to the Crown, raised the siege of Lincoln, routed
his marauding forces, straitly beleaguered London, and soon compelled Lewis to forego
his pretensions, and to evacuate the kingdom. He died in 1219, at his manor of Ca-
versham, near Reading, in Berkshire. His body was conveyed to Reading, where it was
received in solemn procession by the monks of the Abbey, and placed in the choir of their
Church while a mass was said for his soul ; thence to St. Peter’s, Westminster, where it
underwent the same ceremony ; and from thence to the Church of the New Temple,
where it was buried, on Ascension day. Matthew Paris assigns to him the following
epitaph, which styles him a Saturn, as a severe castigator of the Irish ; an Apollo, as
the t^lory and honour of England ; a Mercury, as a diplomatist in Normandy ; and a
Mars, as a warlike and invincible knight against the French:*
Sum quern Saturnum sibi sensit Hybernia, Solem
Anglia, Mcrourium Normannia, Gallia Martem.
The costume of this figure very well accords with the period of William Mareschal
the elder’s decease. He wears a hauberk of chain-mail, long surcoat, and on his shield
is a lion rampant. The Earls of Pembroke of this name bore, Party per pale Or and
Vert, a lion rampant Gules, crowned and langucd Azure.
* Matt. Paris, edit. Watts, p. 304.
Cffigj) tit the 'Crmplr Cljttrtlj.
This unappropriated figure of an ecclesiastic lies under the south wall of the Temple
Church, London. It is sculptured in a hard stone, in very sharp relief. He wears the
pontifical mitre, gloves, and in his left hand is the pastoral stall', which is swathed by
an ornamental band.* He treads on a winged dragon. At the top of the Gothic niche
in which he is placed arc two supporting angels.
Clir Boj> Btssiiop.
This effigy is not more than three feet in length. From the custom which prevailed of
children educated by the church choosing on St. Nicholas’s day (6th December), in mock
ceremony, a bishop from their number, this figure has obtained the appellation of the
Boy or Chorister Bishop.
Some reasonable doubt may however exist whether this be not a memorial for an
adult, a real Bishop of the See of Salisbury. The size of the figure alone appears to
countenance the legendary tale, and the monument of Athelmar Bishop of Winchester,
in the cathedral of that church, of the same age (which was erected to show the spot
where his heart had according to his direction been interred), is equally diminutive.
* These bandages are represented as attached to the pastoral staves of Bishops, in the MSS. and monuments
of this and the following periods of the middle age. The pastoral stall' and the crosier, although often con¬
founded, are distinct appendages. The crosier, or cross, is borne by the Archbishop ; the pastoral staff, or
shepherd's rrook, by the Bishop, &c. “ Next before the chariot went two men, bare-headed, in linen garments
down to the foot, girl and shoes of blue velvet, who carried, the one a crosier, the other a pastoral staff, like
a sheep-hook.” Bacon, New Atlantis.
M<OK UMEHTAl EFFIGT
im tlie Temple (CKurdhi Lconadmai .
The Hot jis u s m o jp .
llae "Jo ill, side of due Have of Salisbury Cathedral .
hyC-4 J'Of-'f.l'-y I
Wtlltam iLongcspce tljc JDoungcv.
This effigy is on the south side of the nave of Salisbury Cathedral ; it is ascribed, with
some uncertainty, to William, eldest son of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, by his
wife Ela. He was girt with the sword of knighthood in 1233, but could not enforce his
claim with King Henry III. to succeed his father as Earl of Salisbury. He married
Idonea, daughter and heiress of Richard de Camville. He took the cross, joined the ex¬
pedition of St. Louis to the Holy Land, and after many deeds of valour, perished in 1250,
in an engagement with the Saracens at a fortress called Massourah, between Damietta
and Cairo. Matthew Paris, and a poem recently published,* which accord together in
the main particulars, give a circumstantial relation of the manner of his death. It appears
that great jealousy of Longespee and his English companions was entertained by the
Count d’Artois, who, on more than one occasion, derided them as a race to whom the
curse of Heaven adhered in the form of tails of beasts , alluding to the ridiculous legend
of St. Augustine and the Kentish boors. The Count d’Artois urged, with many sneers at
the Templars and their master, and many vulgar taunts at Longespee, similar to those de¬
scribed, an attack on the fortified town of Mansour or Massourah. The gallant English¬
man exclaimed, “ Lead on, Sir Count, I will set my foot in danger thus far to day that
you shall not dare to touch a hair even of my horse’s tail, according to vour vulgar jest.”
The Christians rushed forward into the fortress, where they met with so warm a reception
that the Count d' Artois was the first to fly, and plunging his horse into the neighbouring
river, perished by the weight of his harness in his attempt to escape. Longespee resisted
all proposals of retreat, “ Never,” said he, “shall the son of my father flee before a Sa¬
racen !” Supported by a few knights, and surrounded by a host of infidels, his valour
could purchase nothing for itself but honourable death. His right foot at first was cut
oft'; sustained by Richard dc Ascalon he still fought on ; a Saracen sabre disabled his right
arm, he grasped his sword in his left hand until that also was separated from his bodv.
Then fell the valiant grandson of Plantagenet, and on his honoured corse fell also
Richard de Ascalon and De Guise his banner-bearer, disdaining to survive a master so
noble. He was interred in the church of St. Cross at Acre, and it is conjectured that
his mother Ela, the Abbess of Laycock, caused this monument to be placed in the ca¬
thedral of Salisbury to his memory. The figure is in the attitude of a Crusader, and
the style of its costume very well agrees with the period in which Longespee the younger
died. The hauberk, which before this time was entirely of chain mail, hits now portions
of plate armour attached, covering the knees and elbows. The triangular shield with
curved sides, reaches, now, only from the shoulder to the middle of the thigh.
* See Matt. Paris, edit. Watts, pp. 785, 791- Excerpta Histories. Bentley, 1830, p. 66.
29
jEung ©ciuj) tlir ClmU
IIenrv the Third was born at Winchester, 1st October, A. D. 1208, and succeeded to
the Crown by the death of his father John (whose eldest son he was by Isabella of
Angoulesme), in 1216. William Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, was his guardian during
his minority. On the 24th of January, 1236, he was married at Canterbury to Eleanor
of Provence, second daughter of the Earl of Provence, who was grandson of Alphonso
the First, King of Arragon. After an eventful reign of fifty-six years, he died at West¬
minster, Wednesday, 16th November, 1272, and was buried, according to the particular
direction of his last will, in the Abbey Church of that place, notwithstanding his having
previously appointed for himself a sepulture in the New Temple at London.* He com¬
mits to his son and successor the finishing of the Church founded by the “ blessed
Edward” at Westminster, which he had rebuilt on a sumptuous scale, and which remains
to this day a proud and splendid monument of our ancient Monarchy and our Christian
faith, however the latter, in those remote days, was obscured by superstition. He
bequeaths for completing the shrine of St. Edward -f- five hundred marks of silver, to be
furnished from the value of his jewels by his Queen and his executors. He leaves,
moreover, certain vestments of his chapel, a silver image of the Virgin, and certain
crosses of gold, to St. Edward’s chapel at Westminster. His heart was buried at Fon-
tevratid, where the remains of his grandfather and grandmother, and others of his royal
predecessors, reposed. His tomb is on the north side of the shrine of Edward the Con¬
fessor, and has been richly ornamented with inlaid work. On the top lies the effigy of
the King, composed of copper (see the two Plates of the front and profile). On the head
is a crown of a very simple and elegant form. His hands have supported the sceptre
and orb, which have been removed. Over the left shoulder is thrown the royal mantle,
fastened on the right by a fermail, or clasp. Beneath is the tunic. On the legs arc
boots, on which are represented as embroidered in fret-work golden lions passant
guardant. The same ornament decorates a square and a lozenge-shaped pillow, which
are placed under his head. The style in which this image, is executed is of the finest
cast ; il is very probably Italian workmanship, The folds of the drapery are beautifully
disposed, and the head has much of the simple majesty of the antique or Greek school.
Sandford gives this inscription as remaining, in uncial characters, round the tomb of
Henry the Third:
IC[ ; CIST : HENRI : IAD1S . HEY : DE : ENGLETERRE : SEYGNVIt : DE : IRLAVNDE : DVC DE : AQVI-
TAYNE : LE : PILE : EE : ROY 1 IOHAN : IADIS : REY : DF. : ENGLETERRE : A : K I : DEV : FACE :
Del nils. Plate I The embroidered bool.
* Collection of Royal Wills. Nichols, 17S0, p. 15.
+ Me caused a chest of gold to be made for laving up the reliquesof Edward the Confessor. Sandford.
30
CIcanor, ©titcn of Cbtoavti tljr jfirot.
Eleanor, Queen of Edward the First, was the daughter of Ferdinand the Third, King
o Castile, and only child of his second wife, Joan, daughter and heiress of John Earl of
Ponthieu. She was married to him at Bures, in Spain, in 1254, and accompanied him
to the Holy Land, where she is said to have preserved his life by sucking the poison
out of a wound inflicted on him by the hand of an assassin. She bore him four sons
and nine daughters, and died in attending him on an expedition towards Scotland, 27th
November, 1290, at the house of Richard "Weston, at Ilcrdby, or Harby, in the parish
of North Clifton on the Trent, five miles from Lincoln. Her bowels were buried* in
Lincoln Cathedra], and her body was conveyed for interment to the Abbey Church at
"Westminster. At every stage where it rested the King ordered a Cross to be placed.
Fifteen are enumerated as having been erected in consequence. One at Herdby, whence
the procession set out; and in the chapel of which place Edward also founded a chantry
for her soul. The others at Lincoln, Newark, Grantham, Leicester, Stamford, Gcdding-
ton, Northampton, Stony Stratford, Woburn, Dunstable, St. Alban's, Waltham, Cheap-
side (London), and at the village of Charing, near the Minster where she was to be
entombed. Herdby, Leicester, Woburn, and Cheap, are omitted by some authorities.
These Crosses were adorned with statues of the Queen. Those at Geddington, North¬
ampton, and Waltham are extant at this day. In gothic niches in the upper part have
been female figures, very similar in style to that on her tomb ; on the lower, shields
charged with arms of England, Castile and Leon, and Ponthieu. Edward caused a
monument to be erected to her memory near that of his father in the Confessor's
Chapel, in Westminster Abbey, on which is placed her recumbent image of copper;
and round the verge of the tomb the following inscription, in uncial letters :
ICY GYST ALIANOR IADIS REYNE DE ANGLETERRE, FEMME AL RE EDEWERD FIZ LE RE
Sandford informs us that on a tablet of wood, hanging near her monument by an iron
chain, were the following verses in Latin :
Nobilis Hispani jacet hie soror inclita regis,
Eximii consors Aleunora thori,
Edwardi prinii YVallorum principis uxor,
Cui pater Henricus tertius Anglus erat ;
Hanc illi uxorem gnato petit ; online princcps
Legal i munus suscipit ipse bono :
* In a tomb bearing her effigy of brass gilt, similar to that in Westminster Abbey, but destroyed in the
Civil wars. On it was the following inscription :
Hie • SVNT • SEPVLTA • VICERA * ALIANORE • QVONDAM 1 REGIME * VXORIS • REGIS ' EDVAKDI •
FILlt • REGIS • HENRICI • CVIVS • ANtME * PROPICIETVR • DEVS ■ AMEN ' PATER • NOSTER •
31
Alphonso fratri placuit felix Hymeneus :
Germanam Edwardo nec sine dote dedit,
Dos preclara fuit nec tali indigna niarito,
Pontivo princeps munere dives erat ;
Ferainaconsilio prudens, pia, prole beata,
Auxit amicitiis, auxlt honore viruni :
Disce mori.
The effigy of Queen Eleanor, like that of Henry the Third, is remarkable for the
beauty of its execution ; indeed, it may be considered one of the finest of the series of
monuments given in this work. The form of the crown, and the style of the drapery,
are so similar to that of the monument of Henry the Third, that it may be strongly con¬
jectured that both effigies were executed by the same hand, under the direction of Edward
the First. The features of the Queen arc remarkably regular, and have an air of com¬
manding beauty. In her right hand was probably a sceptre ; her left grasps a narrow
band attached to her mantle. The mantle covers both shoulders, falls over her tunic,
and is gathered in well-disposed folds round her feet, which rest on two coucliant
lions.
sc j&ortljtoolti, Btsljop of Ctp.
Hugh de Northwold, Abbot of St. Edinundsbury, was consecrated Bishop of Ely in
the year 1229 (14 Henry III.) He was a munificent restorer of his Cathedral Church,
which he almost rebuilt from the foundation at the cost of upwards of five thousand
pounds, a princely sum for the time in which he flourished. In the dark days of
Christianity the pastors of the church exhibited noble ideas of the honour due to the
Deity in the piles devoted to his worship, and a corresponding munificence in contri¬
buting to their construction. The rebuilding Ely Cathedral by Northwold occupied
seventeen years, and he consecrated the new church in the presence of Henry III. and
Prince Edward, whom he entertained (keeping at the same time “ the hall, or open
house to all comers) in his palace at Ely. The last mentioned edifice he also entirely
rebuilt, and covered w ith lead, a distinction of the most costly buildings in the middle
age. He departed this life on the 9th of August 1254, thankful to Providence for
having been allowed to see the completion of his cathedral, where he was interred in the
middle of the presbytery. On the removal of the choir the situation of his effigy was
changed, and it now lies on the altar tomb of Barnet, who died Bishop of Ely 13/3. The
niche which canopies the figure of Northwold is in the richest style of sculpture, the pillars
32
arc composed of interlacing foliage in scroll work, intermixed with heads of ecclesiastics
and birds. At the top of the canopy arc fragments of two angels. The sides are adorned
with niches containing figures : these do not appear in the etching. The Bishop treads
on a dragon and a lion, under both of which images the power of Satan is indicated in
Holy Writ. The entablature at the foot of the tomb, delineated in the plate, represents
the martyrdom of St. Edmund, King of the East Angles, who was shot to death with
arrows by the Danes, A. D. 870. This piece of sculpture of course alludes to Northwold
as Abbot of Saint Edmundsbury.
<3 3Latip ant) Cljtlti.
This singular monument is in Scarclifte Church, Derbyshire. The style in which it is
executed shows it to be of the thirteenth century. The head is surmounted with a very
elegant circlet, and rests on a couchant lion ; the hair is disposed in braids ; the tunic is
confined at the neck by a large fermail or broach ; a band appears to attach the mantle
to the shoulders, and is held in the right hand ; the mantle is caught up under the right
arm. The left supports a male child, who displays a long scroll, on which has been
inscribed in uncial characters some leonine verses, which arc now much defaced.
Hrc SV . MVLIER IACET INTVM VLATA :
CONSTANS . ;
. PROLES RE _ ERE 1IVMATA :
CVM PECC . VACVATA!
. DELOCATA. AMES' :
Details.
I. Profile of the head, showing the hair, &c. 2. The circlet enlarged.
Bofcert tir Ucrr, Carl of Cjrforti.
Robert, son of Aubrey do Vere, Earl of Oxford, succeeded his brother Aubrey in the
honours and possessions of his family in 1214. He was one of the principal Barons
who took up arms against King John, for which he was excommunicated by Pope
Innocent the Third. On the accession of Henry the Third he was received into favour,
and became a Judge in the King’s Courts. He married Isabella, the sister and inheritrix
of Hugh de Bolebec, by whom he had a son and heir, Hugh. He died in the fifth year
of the reign of Henry the Third, and was buried in the chancel of the Priory Church of
Hatfield Broad Oak, in Essex. At the dissolution, Weever says, his tomb was removed
into the parish church, and thus transcribes his epitaph :
Sire Robert de Veere !e premier, Count de Oxcnford le tierz, git ci ; Dieu de 1'alme si luy plest face merci.
Qi pur fame priera xl jors de pardonn avera. Pater Nosier.*
This figure lies cross-legged, and is represented in the act of drawing his sword. The
loose fit of the hauberk about the right-arm and neck is admirably expressed, and the
mails are sculptured with great accuracy. The thighs appear to be covered with a
gamboised or quilted defence, which reaches to the knees, the caps of which are defended
by octangular pieces of plate-armour. The shield is curiously diapered with fleurs-de-lys
and roses. The ground of the field in ancient bearings is often enriched with fanciful
ornaments which have no relation whatever to the coat itself. De Vere bore, quarterly
Or and Gules, in the first quarter a mullet Argent* This monument, from the costume,
appears to have been erected about fifty years after the Earl’s decease.
Details. Diaper work on the shield enlarged. Band on the hood enlarged.
Cffigr in (Soohrvton Cljurclj, SLincolnofjfrc.
1 his unappropriated figure presents a good example of the chain-mail armour of the
thirteenth century. It is presumed to belong to the family of Rey.-J-
* Funeral Monuments, p. 631.
t There was formerly another mutilated Effigy in a chapel which has since been used as the schoolhouse,
and an inscription to Nicholas Rev and his son Edmund; as we learn from a Collection of Lincolnshire
epitaphs, made by the Rev. Robert Smyth in the middle of the last century, and now in the possession of
. B. Nichols, Estp F.S.A.
34
MQNITM ENTAIL. ’ E il'FlG'Y,
in GoJberion C-biurelt Ijmcoliifliire.
Mi uM tr /' a.
Ixobrit l\os
VV AS descended from the noble family of Iios or Roos, of Hamlake. His father Everard
d.ed when he was thirteen years of age, and he had livery of his lands from the wardship
of the Crown m the second year of the reign of Richard I. on payment of a line of one
thousand marks ; which shows that his possessions must have been very large
He was one of the Barons who leagued together to obtain the Great andthe Forest
Charter from John ; and when that King had signed them at Runnemedc, he was one of
the chief persons who undertook to constrain him to observe them. He married Isabella
the daughter of William the Lion, King of Scotland, by whom he had two sons William
and Robert. He gave the first his castle of Helmesley, with the patronage of the „,o-
nastencs of Kirkham, Rievaulx, and Warden, to the other his castle of Werke and a
barony in Scotland, held by knight’s service of his brother-in-law. Of both the above-
mentioned castles he was the fonnder. He confirmed to the Templars his manor of
Ribstone, with other possessions, assumed the habit of their order, died in 1231 and
was buried in the Temple church. The effigy of Ros is cross-legged, and his hands
raised m the act of prayer; the hood of his hauberk is thrown back to show his visage.
His sword depends from a belt adorned with broad studs ; his surcoat reaches to his
heels, which arc armed with the pryck spur, and rest on a lion. On his shield are three
water bougets, which were the bearing of Ros, Argent, in a field Gules. This figure,
like that of Robert de Vcre, is of a period subsequent to that of the decease of the
person whom it is said to represent.
I\trimvti OTtllpsimvnc hr JWontfort.
This very remarkable effigy lies on the north wall of the church of Hitchcndon in
Buckinghamshire.
After the battle of Evesham in 1265, in which the famous Baron Simon de Montfort,
with his eldest son Henry, lost their lives, his wife * and children fled the country, with
the exception of the youngest son Richard, who assumed the name of Wellesburnc (from
a manor so termed in Warwickshire, an ancient possession of the family), and retired to
Ilinchendon as above, where he resided at a mansion called Wreck Hall. The armorial
bearings on this effigy, and the peculiarities which mark the period of its execution,
enable us very confidently to appropriate it to this identical personage. lie became the
founder of the family of Wellesburnc, which was extant in the county of Buckingham,
in the reign of Henry VI. In the church of Hitchcndon down to that period were
placed numerous monuments of his successors, one of which will be found in another
place. A deed of this Wellesburnc de Montfort has been printed in Nichols’s History of
Leicestershire, the faulty Latin of which is perhaps no proof of its being fictitious.
There are two seals appended to this instrument, one of which has the legend “ Sigil-
lum Bellatoris, filii Siinonis de Montefort the other bears the rampant lion of his
house, the legend “ Wellisburne de la Montcfortc.’’
There is some reason to conjecture that Richard Wellesburn de Montfort was imbued
with the martial character of his race. His effigy represents him in the attitude of a
Crusader (lie might, not improbably, have passed some of the years immediately after his
father's overthrow, abroad, in the service of the cross) ; his right hand grasps a dagger, his
left sustains a ponderous broad-bladed sword, on the scabbard of which are escutcheons of
various armorial coats, borne doubtless by the connections of his noble family. On this
and all the effigies of his descendants the pride of heraldry obtains, which shows that
they resigned not, under adverse fortune and a change of name, the remembrance of their
honours.
The quilted gambeson appears in bold folds under the hauberk and descends to the
upper part of the knee. His feet rest on a lion, on which is a crescent for difference.
The bearing of the shield is very remarkable; a lion rampant a la queue fourehce, holding
* Eleanor, second daughter of King John and Isabella of Angoulesnie, she retired to a nunnery at Montar-
gis, in France. Simon her second son, was Count oFBigorre in France, where he founded a family bearing his
patrimonial name ; Almaric, her third son, was first a priest in York, but embraced the military profession
abroad ; Guy, the fourth son, was Count of Anglezia in Italy, progenitor of the Montforts of Tuscany, and of
the Counts of Campobaehi in Naples ; Richard, the fifth son, is commemorated by the effigy.
36
MOHFMENTAL EFFIGY.
Id IIIlchMuton Clmrrli Buda.
in his mouth a child * the field semde with crosslets fitchfie. The bearing is repeated
on the surcoat quarterly, with a griffin segreant, holding in his paws a child, and with the
addition of a chief chequd, no doubt for Mellcnt, to which Earldom the Montforts sue-
cecded about the time of the Norman Conquest.
This effigy is executed in a truly noble style, and recalls to us at a glance the age of
chivalry and romantic feeling; and it is somewhat remarkable, that it commemorates
a name which has become hacknied among the writers of fiction, without allusion to
the historic facts connected with it, merely for its sound. The slender but striking
circumstances which are known concerning Wellesburne de Montfort surely afford ad-
mirable ground-work for the writer of historical romance.
9toclint Countess of 2.ancasttr.
Aveline Countess of Lancaster was daughter of William de Fortibus, Earl of Albe¬
marle and Holdcrness, inheritrix of her father, and by her mother Countess of Devon
and the Isle of Wight. In 1267 she married Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster,
died in 1269 without issue, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, near the spot where
her husband was afterwards interred. The effigy placed on her tomb affords a fine spe¬
cimen of female costume in the thirteenth century.
* Gules, a lion rampant with two tails argent, was a bearing of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. See
the vignette above, from an architectural decoration in Westminster Abbey. This shield with the addition of
a child in the lion's mouth, was blazoned in the windows of Wreck Hall at Hitchendon, and carved on the
reading desk of Hitchendon Church. Argent, a lion rampant, with ten cross-crosslets filchde sable, are the
Montforts of Warwickshire. Bendy of six, Or and Gules, changed temp. Edward I. to bendy of ten, are the
Montforts of Beldesert. Gules, a griffin segreant, a chief chequt; Or and Azure, over all a bend Ermine, is a coat
of the Wellesburn Montforts. There is at Hitchendon a monumental figure of a withered corpse, enshrouded
in a loose shirt, having marked on his breast the figure of a priest and eight crosslets on his body. This
represents, it may be well conjectured, some incumbent of the parish church of the Montfort family. Langley
conceives (but the style of the figure by no means supports the idea) that it is a memorial for Peter, son of
Peter de Montfort, who died at the battle of Evesham. See Hist, of Desborough Hundred, p. 478.
i§
Sana jR©mE»T Shujbilawb.
JFumhh .liia Effiirrim Mitas Jo' rHai'rclu.Kciral -
Sheppy. He died without issue male, and Margaret his daughter carried his estate by
mamage to the family of Cheyn£. To the horse's head which appears on this tomb,
and on the vane of the church, is attached a wild legend, only worthy of notice as such,
that Shurlan d having in a transport of rage caused a priest to be buried alive, a judicial
process was about to be instituted against him for the crime, when the King chancing
to be on ship-board at the Great Norc off the Isle of Sheppy, Shurland swam his horse
to the vessel, sued to the King for pardon, which in consequence of this perilous feat he
obtained, and Ins gallant steed bore him safely to the land. On reaching the beach, a
wrinkled hag accosted him, telling him that although that horse had saved his life, he
would at last be the cause of his death. The impetuous Shurland, to defeat the pro¬
phecy of this sybil, drew his sword, and on the spot slew his generous courser, whose
bones lay bleaching for years after on the strand. Shurland one day approached the
place, and while relating the story to a friend, kicked the scull of the horse, when a
splinter from the bone entered his foot. The wound festered, mortified, and death
ensued. Thus much for the tale ; unfortunately for the credit of which, the horse’s
head appears to be led by the bridle by an armed figure, perhaps the knight’s henchman,
or his esquire. Be this as it may, the horse is but a mark of his equestrian rank; and
it may be observed that a figure of a similar age, leading a horse, may be seen at this
day near the west door ol Exeter Cathedral. The horse’s head on the vane of the
church has most probably been fixed there in later days, in compliance with the vulgar
tradition. The costume and accoutrements of this effigy are highly interesting. The
interior of the shield, and all its straps, are displayed. By his side is his banner,
attached to a pike-staff, or spear. Some markings of links appear on the horse’s head,
which show that it has been covered with chain-mail. The surcoat, or pourpoint,
appears strongly quilted in long parallel folds. The whole has been painted with lions
rampant argent on an azure ground, which was the coat of the noble family of Ley-
bourne, of Leybourne Castle, in Kent. Sir William de Lcybourne was at Carlaverock,
and Shurland probably assumed his coat as a Kentish gentleman in his train.*
i3uj(feme.£i oc 3lcgboume, augi
THailtanjj Ijomesi, £an£ meg et jSan^ gi,
SSsnierc i ot o largeg pan$s
TnOe o gig blanc Ijionsi rampant.-}-
Details. The head and laces of the hood. The gamboised sleeve of the surcoat, with its laces, the mail of
the haubergeon appearing beneath. Pillar resting on a lion, one of the architectural supporters of the canopy
of the tomb.
* Hogarth, in an excursion into Kent in the year 1732, attempted seriously to sketch the effigy of Shurland.
In his rough delineation of the figure there is nothing very extravagant or remarkable, but when he came to
the horse's head the caricaturist prevailed, and it is impossible to compare his drawing with that of Charles
Stothard without a smile. Sec “ An Account of what seemed most remarkable in five days' peregrination of
the five following persons : Messrs. Tothill, Scott, Hogarth, Thornhill, and Forrest, begun on Saturday, May
27, 1732, and finished on the 31st of the same month. London, 1782.” For the possession of this rare tract
we are indebted to J. B. Nichols, Esq. F.S.A.
f Poem of the Siege of Carlaverock, edited by Nicolas. Nichols and Son, 1S28.
39
etmumti Ctoucljbaclt, Carl of iaiuasttr.
Was tile second son of King Henry III. by his wife Eleanor of Provence, and was born
at London lti January 1245. When he was yet but eight years of age, the Pope sent
him a gold ring, investing him with the sovereignty of Sicily and Apulia. Not, however,
unmindful of this titular and empty honour, front reverence to the then paramount au¬
thority, spiritual and secular, from whence it was derived, he stamped com bearing the
legend “ Aidmundus Rex Scicilic.”
On tlie overthrow of Simon de Montfort and the rebellious Barons at the battle of
Evesham, in 1265, he was invested with the Earldom of Leicester, the lands of Nicholas
de Segravc, and the possessions of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who in the follow¬
ing year, had renewed hostilities against Henry III. and was defeated at Chesterfield.
He was also constituted High Seneschal or Steward of Englaud in the place of the
rebel de Montfort, and afterwards Earl of Champagne; he had, moreover, grants of the
castle and town of Monmouth, and numerous other lordships and estates. In 1269 he
was marked with the cross at Northampton by Ottobon, the Legate of the Pope, with
his elder brother Edward, the Earl of Gloucester, and many other nobles of the land :
one of those nominal crusades which procured for the See of Rome so many golden
In 1291 he had license from his brother King Edward I. to
md ; which with its gardens and
savoy in t
n by his mother Eleanor, and which had before
crosses in current coin,
crenellate or embattle bis house, the
dependencies, had been granted to 1
belonged to her brother Peter of Savoy.
In 1295 Philip the Fair haughtily summoned King Edward I. as Duke of Aquitaine to
s of France, to answer for certain alleged outrages committed by
The Earl of Lancaster was at first sent
, but a pretext
appear before the Peer
his subjects towards some French marine
ambassador to the Court of France in order to arrange those differe
was drawn from them by Philip to seize on some of the possessions of Edward as Duke
of Aquitaine. The Earl of Lancaster was then dispatched with a military force into Gas¬
cogne - but bis army being too inconsiderable to cope with that of the French, lie Was
constrained to shut himself up in Bayonne, where, suffering under mental venation from
his ill success, he sickened and died in 1296. A truce being concluded with France, Ins
hotly was brought to England, and buried ill a sumptuous tomb in the Abbey Church at
-Westminster. "lie had conscientiously directed that he should not be interred until his
debts were paid. Ills first wife was Avcline, an account of whom has been given to
illustrate her effigy; bis second, Blanch, widow of Henry King of Navarre, Earl
Champagne and Brie, by whom lie had three sons and a daughter.
Details. Plate I. I. Ornamental pattern on the pillow which supports the head. 3. Ditto on the lace
the hood. 3. Surcoat diapered with rampant lions, eagles displayed, ornamental crosses, &c. the points
the label and fleur-de-lys with which it is suraiounted enlarged, t. The whole figure os originally paint
Plate 11. 1. Maine, enlaigad. S. Bearings oo the bell. ,1. figure of .he Earl 0» bis buried horse, m
attitude of prayer, which occupies the trefoil ornament at the top of the tomb.
of
.
©Billtam lir ©lalrncr, Carl of pcmbrokr.
William de valence, son of Hugh le Brun, Earl of March, and half-brother
by his mother, Isabel d’Angouleme, to Henry HI, in 1247, came to England.
Soon after his arrival he was with great state and solemnity knighted by the king at
Westminster, who continuing to lavish favours on him and his brothers, and also
giving himself too much to their counsels, the indignation and hatred of the barons
was raised against them. In consequence William de Valence was obliged to quit
the kingdom, but returning three or four years after, commanded in the king's
army at the battle of Lewes, 1264. On seeing the day lost he fled to Pevensey,
and from thence to France; but it appears he did not remain there any time,
being at the battle of Evesham, 1265, which restored to Henry III. his regal
authority. William de Valence, 10th of Edward I., 1283, was in the expedition
against the Welsh, and in 1296 being at Bayonne, was there slain by the French.
His monument is composed of an altar tomb of stone, on which is raised a
superstructure of oak, bearing the effigy of the deceased, formed of the same
material: the whole of this wood-work was once covered with plates of copper
enamelled and gilt ; but of these splendid decorations, there is scarcely any thing left
but what is to be found on the figure, which has also suffered in parts. The human
form is rudely expressed, a costly display of materials and workmanship appears to
have been the principal object of the artist who executed it; and it indeed gives a
very high idea of the goldsmith's art at that early period.
William de Valence is represented entirely in mail. On his head is a rich circle,
once adorned with stones or glass, but the empty collets now only remain. T.he
surcoat has been powdered with a number of little escutcheons bearing the arms of
De Valence, only three of these are left; the situation and number of those gone
may be easily traced. The rich lacing about the surcoat aud arms, appears to have
been used for the purpose of concealing the unsightly joinings of the plates which
cover the figure. In the spurs it is remarkable that they have been fastened on with
cloth, in form of straps of an extraordinary thickness; of these, as might be expected.
/^\V
but a small portion remains. The table of the tomb has been covered with a
fret of the arms of England and De Valence; it is possible that on the raised border
which surrounded it, was the inscription, perfect in Weever’s time, who says,
“ about the verge or side of his monument these verses are inlayed with brasse."
Anglia tota doles, moritur quia regia proles,
Gua florere soles, quern continet infiina moles,
Guiliclmus nomen insigne Valentia praibet
Celsmn cognomen, nam tale dari sibi debet
Qui valuit validus, vincens virtute valore,
Et placuit placidus, sensus morurnque vigore,
Dapsilis et habilis, immotus, pralia sectans
Utilis ac humilis, devotus premia spcctans
Milleque trecentis cum quatuor inde retentis.
In Maii mense, hanc mors propria ferit cnse,
Unique legis litec repete quam sit via plena timore,
Meque lege, le morilurum & inscius bore,
O clemens christe cclos intret precor isle.
Nil videat triste, quia pretulit omnibus hisce.
On the sides and ends of this part of the tomb, are the remains of arches, twelve
on each side, three at top, and four at bottom, within which were probably figures
representing the relatives of the deceased ; for at the foot of each arch, placed hori¬
zontally, formerly was an escutcheon to point out each personage ; five only are
now left, given in the margin, fig. 1, *2, 3, 4. .No. 2 is repeated. In one of the Lans-
downe MSS. in the British Museum, are drawings, taken in 1010, of nineteen of the
lost escutcheons. As they cannot be more in place than here, they are given, plate
2, — where there are repetitions, they are marked by the figures. The stone altar tomb,
on which the parts described are raised, has on its sides and foot, on escutcheons
in relief, the arms of England, William de Valence, and Aymer his son. The
latter are distinguished by being dimidiated with those of Clermont.*
There is good ground for supposing the upper or metallic part of the tomb to be
French work. The mode of bearing the shield on the hip, and of emblazoning the
surcoat by little escutcheons, are both fashions common to French monuments,
seldom if ever occurring in this country. That we did employ French artists in
enamelled tombs, there is proof in that of Walter de Merton, executed at Limoges,
and put up in Rochester Cathedral, but destroyed at the Reformation.')' That the
style of the tomb in question was otherwise French than in the points abovemen-
tioned, we may see by comparing it with Lobineau’s print of the enamelled tomb of
Alice, Duchess de Bretagne.
Details — Plate 1, Fig. I. The circle enlarged: — 2, 3, and 4, portions of the
lacing on the surcoat. The enamelling and diapering on the shield. And of the
enamelled fret. 5. The remains of the sword, ft. Engraved border on the lower
part of the surcoat. Plate 2, Fig. 1, 2, and 3. Enamelling on the pillow and
belts.J 4. Portion of the mail, formed by engraved lines, and appears to be of that
kind which is so seldom represented on stone. 5. Spur, with part of the strap.
* Beatrice, daughter of Raoul de Clermont, Lord of Nesle, Constable of France, was the first wife of
Aymer de Valence, and was probably living at the time the tomb was erected.
t This tomb, which was of copper enamelled and gilt, cost for its construction, and the expense of its
carriage from Limoges to Rochester, 41/. 5s. 6 d.
I Neither of the belts have any arms emblazoned on them, nor are the escutcheons on the surcoat, but six
in number. — Vide Gough.
Jung Ctotoarti tfjr gtcoitti,
T- he fourth son of King Edward the First and Eleanor his Queen, was born at Caernar¬
von, in North Wales, April 25th, 1284, from which circumstance he derived his surname.
After the death of Llewelyn ap Griffith, he was created Prince of Wales, being the first
of the elder sons of the Kings of England who bore that title. He was also Earl of
Ponthieu and Chester, and succeeded his father in his Kingdoms 7th July, 1307, being
then twenty-three years of age. His father, just before his death, had banished from the
country Piers de Gavaston, a Gascon gentleman of light and profligate habits, who had
corrupted his principles. On his death-bed he laid a curse on him if ever he recalled
him ; directed him to carry his body with him into Scotland ; not to bury it until he
had subjugated that country, and to send his heart to the Holy Land. One of the first
acts of his reign was, in spite of this injunction, to recall Gavaston from exile, to invest
him with the Earldom of Cornwall, and other large possessions of the Crown. The
chief officers and judges of the land were dismissed from their posts to make way for
the favourites of this Court minion. Edward gave him in marriage Margaret, his own
niece, being the child of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, by Joan of Acre, daughter
to Edward the First; and on setting out for Boulogne, in 1308, to celebrate his marriage
with Isabella, daughter of the King of France, he appointed him Gustos of the Realm in
his absence.
The deportment of the favourite, and the blind partiality of the King, so disgusted
the Barons, that, under the direction of Thomas Earl of Lancaster, his cousin, they
came to a resolution to oblige the King to banish Gavaston from England for life:
with which dictation Edward found himself obliged nominally to comply. However,
instead of dismissing him in fact from his counsels, and from office, lie appointed him
Lieutenant of Ireland, and shortly after recalled him to his Court. A repetition of
similar circumstances at length incensed the people, the Barons, and their leader, Thomas
Earl of Lancaster, to the highest pitch. An army was levied in order to seize the person
of Gavaston, who was protected by the King. He lodged him in Scarborough Castle ;
where, after some resistance, he was forced to surrender, and was shortly afterwards
executed on Blacklow-hill, near Warwick, by the confederate nobles, by a kind of sum¬
mary military sentence. The next remarkable event of King Edward’s reign was his
signal defeat in Scotland by Robert Bruce, at the battle of Bannockburn, on Midsummer
day 1314.
The King’s inclination for favouritism was not to be corrected by the fate of
Gavaston. Hugh Spenser, his Chamberlain, succeeded to the place which he had
held in the King’s affections, became equally obnoxious to the Barons, and, with Ins
father, who had been created Earl of Worcester, and had shared with his son in the
fmits of the King’s favour, was banished from the Realm by a decree of Parliament,
exacted by the confederate nobles sword in hand. The Spensers, however, shortly
afterwards returned to England. The King’s party was successful in their turn, and
Thomas Earl of Lancaster, the leader of the Barons, was defeated, made prisoner, and
beheaded at Pontefract, his own Castle,* 22d March, 1322.
His Queen Isabella, who was in France with her paramour Mortimer and the young
Prince Edward, now instituted a series of intrigues against her husband. She inflamed
the minds of the English people against their monarch, and, aided by William Earl of
Hainault and Holland, fitted out an expedition to invade his dominions, under the
plausible pretence of ridding the nation of its burthens, and reforming the Government.
The King fled into Wales ; the elder Spenser was besieged in Bristol, taken, hanged
without trial, his body cut to pieces and thrown to the dogs : this in the ninetieth year
of his age. The King himself was shortly after captured in the monastery at Neath, in
South Wales, with the younger Spenser, who was hanged at Hereford on a gibbet fifty
feet high, furnished expressly for the occasion by the citizens of London.
The Queen and Mortimer now proceeded to procure a formal deposition of the King
by the Parliament. The King acceded tr> their decree, communicated by certain com¬
missioners, delegated for the purpose. Judge Trussel pronounced, in the name of the
Bishops, the Barons, and the people of England, all allegiance to him void. The High
Steward of the Household broke his staff, and declared all officers discharged from his
service. Thus was the political demise of this unfortunate King attended by the same
ceremony which had consigned his predecessors to the grave !
He was at first committed to the custody of Henry Earl of Lancaster, his cousin, who
treating him with too much lenity, Thomas Lord Berkeley, John Maltravers, and Sir
Thomas Gournay, were constituted his keepers in rotation. He was transferred from castle
to castle, poorly clothed ; and on one occasion Maltravers commanded him to be shaved
with water from a neighbouring ditch, when bursting into indignant tears, he exclaimed,
“ Here is at least warm water on my cheeks, whether you will or not ! ” The eyes of the
people began now, however, to be opened to just consideration, and their hearts to relent
in favour of their liege lord. The Queen and Mortimer saw that, even from his
miserable existence, if protracted, might accrue vengeance for their own heads. They
therefore send orders to Gournay and Maltravers for his death ; a command too promptly
and cruelly obeyed by those instruments of hell, who in the absence of Lord Thomas
Berkeley from his Castle, entered the King’s chamber at dead of night, threw him on his
bed, and introduced a red-hot iron through a horn into his body. The ancient walls of
the Castle, the neighbouring town of Berkeley, and the shores of the Severn Sea, re¬
sounded with his dying shrieks 1 The peasant was aroused from the tranquil slumber so
little known to the royal couch, and uttered a prayer for the passing soul of his King.-f-
* He was the son of Edmund Crouchback, whose tomb has been described.
f See Holinshcd, fol. edit. vol. II. p. 341.
Thus says the poet, in allusion to this event :
" Mark the year and mark the night.
When Severn shall re-echo with affright.
The shrieks of Death through Berkeley’s roofs that ring.
Shrieks of an agonizing King !
She-wolf of France, with unrelenting fangs
Thou tears’t the bowels of thy mangled mate !”
The manner of his death obviated all show of external violence in the general appear¬
ance of his person. His body was conveyed without pomp to Gloucester Cathedral,
where the monument bearing the effigy represented in the plates was afterwards erected
by his son Edward the Third * He had by his wife Isabella four children :-Edward of
Windsor, who succeeded him ; John of Eltham,— both of whom will he noticed in their
places ; Joan, wife of David Bruce, afterwards King of Scotland ; Eleanor, who became
the second wife of Reynold Earl of Geldres.
The effigy of the second Edward represents him royally crowned ; he has had a sceptre
in one hand, which is now removed : the other supports the mundus or ball.
* He is said to have made some Latin verses while in prison, describing his calamities, declaring his sub¬
mission to them as a punishment for his grievous sins, and imploring mercy for them through the merits of
his Redeemer, and the intercession of the blessed Virgin. These arc paraphrased at length in Fabian's
Chronicle. (Reprint, p. 431.)
gfoomar or agmer tic ©alcnce, Carl of ^cmfcrofcc.
Aymer de Valence was the third and youngest son of William de Valence, whose effigy
has already been described, and by the death of his brothers during his father’s life-time,
succeeded him in the Earldom of Pembroke- He was much employed in military service
by his kinsman Edward I. particularly in his Scottish wars. That King going into
France in 1286 left him Regent of the Realm. In 1305 he was appointed Keeper of the
Marches of Scotland about Berwick, and Commander of the Forces sent to oppose
Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick. He was present with King Edward at the time of his
death at Burgh upon the Sands in Northumberland, who requested him to protect Ins
son from the contamination of the debauched foreigner Gavaston. He united with the
Barons against that minion of the second Edward, besieged and took him prisoner m
Scarborough Castle. According to the capitulation Gavaston was to have been allowed
to have an interview with the King, and to be tried by his Peers ; but the Earl of War¬
wick took the profligate Gascon from de Valence’s custody, and summarily beheaded him
on Blacklow Hill, near Warwick. In 1314 the Earl of Pembroke was present at the
battle of Bannockburn, so disastrous to the English arms in Scotland. He is said to have
met his death in France at a tournament, which was appointed by himself in order to cele¬
brate his marriage with his third wife Mary, daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Earl of St.
Pol. She founded Pembroke Hall, in the University of Cambridge. Aymer de V alence
was buried on the North side of the Choir of the Abbey Church at Westminster, and
his tomb is celebrated for its architecture and sculptural decorations. In the trefoil
ornament which fills up the pediment on either side the monument he is represented on
his barded horse. The compartments round the altar slab, on which lus effigy reposes,
are occupied by elegant statues representing his friends and connexions, and decorated
Details. Plate 1. 1. Figures at the head of the Effigy. 2. Band or lace of the hood. 3. Band confining
the surcoat to the waist. 4. Sword belt. Effigy as originally painted : Plate II. 1. Toe of the solerette of the
figure on horseback. 2. Figure on horseback. North side of the tomb ; basnet, aventaille, mantelet, surcoat,
&c. Bases of the barded horse, bearing the bars and martlets of De Valence. 3. Figure on the North side of
the tomb.
nt wills k ftaimtiom wkz fiM talftilf eaBoii swlttif m \
§?tv William tic Staunton.
1 his singular tomb in Staunton Church, Nottinghamshire, commemorates Sir William
de Staunton. This family, who took their surname from the spot where they were
settled and had possessions, are said to have flourished there before the tera of the Nor¬
man Conquest. A rhyming herald of the sixteenth century, speaking of them, says,
“ Tlie first Sir Mauger Staunton, Knight,
Before William came in - ”
They held their lands at Staunton by tenure of castle guard of the Lords of Belvoir.
There was a tower in that fortress called Staunton Tower, which they, by obligation of
the tenure no doubt, built and kept in repair. Sir William was the son of Sir Geoffrey
de Staunton and Alice his wife. He was a knight of active reputation, favoured by Ed¬
ward I. and employed in his service. He made his will in 1312, and from it we may
gather that he was under a vow of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, for he left a bequest of
five marks each to two footmen who should go “ the first passage," in his name. He died
in 1326. The monumental stone of Sir William de Staunton is somewhat fanciful; it
appears intended to represent him lying in his coffin, the lid of which is cut away to show
the figure as far as the elbows, and the feet to the ancles. On the centre of the stone is
his helmet, and his shield with two chevrons .* Round the edge of the stone runs the
following inscription in the black letter character, being an early instance of its adoption.
^ $ic ©ill's, be Staunton miles! filiujS galftidde caDctn -j- militig que obiit in ibu maii anno b’ni
. cuj’ an . . p’picietur deujS. On that part of his surcoat visible, the
upper of the two chevrons appears.
* A seal of his Father Geoffrey, appendant to a charter, bears two bars and a large canton, charged with a
mullet of six points. His son, it appears, adopted another coat : his seal, as well the tomb, exhibits the two
chevrons. Legend, s . will .'de . stanton . militis.
t Blundered for Galfridi ejusdem, as also gue for qui, the second following word.
g Bacon tn ©orlcaton Cijuvdj, Suffolk.
This interesting figure exhibits a good example of those extraordinary appendages to
armour called ailettes. Weever makes, taking them for escutcheons,* a shrewd conjec¬
ture that they were intended to indicate the rank of Knight Banneret, being of the
narrow oblong form to which the pennon of the Knight was reduced when he was raised
to that honourable grade. This distinction was only conferred on the field of battle.
Froissart gives us a lively idea of the ceremony employed, where he describes the making
Sir John Chandos a Banneret by the Black Prince on the field at Navarete, or Vittoria.
“ The Spaniards seeing the English had halted did the same, in order of battle. Then
each man tightened his armour, and made ready for instant combat. Sir John Chandos
advanced in front of the battalions with his banner uncased in his hand. lie presented
it to the Prince, saying, ‘My Lord, here is my banner; I present it to you that I may
display it in whatever manner shall lie most, agreeable to you ; for, thanks to God, I
have now sufficient lands to enable me so to do, and maintain the rank which it ought
to hold.’ The Prince (Don Pedro being present) took the banner in his hand, which
was blazoned with a sharp stake Gules on a field Argent, after having cut off the tail to
make it square, he displayed it, and returning it to him by the handle, said, ‘ Sir John,
I return you your banner. God give you honour and strength to preserve it.’ Upon
this Sir John left the Prince, went back to his men with the banner in his hand, and
said to them, ‘ Gentlemen, behold my banner and yours ; you will guard it, therefore, as
becomes you.' His companions, taking the banner, replied with much cheerfulness,
that if it pleased God and St. George they would defend it well, and act worthily of it.
.... The banner w’as put into the hands of a worthy English Squire, called William
Allestry, who bore it with honour that day, and loyally acquitted himself in the service.”-}'
* Fun. Monuni. p. 84~. edit. 1631.
f Johnes’s Froissart, vol. 111. p. 304. Svo edit.
48
§*>tr Ivtrijarti tie Wtjatton.
1 he Lords of Whatton had their residence in a strong castellated mansion on the banks
of the river Smite, in the vale of Belvoir : traces of the earthworks on which it wa9
erected remain to this day. Sir William de Whatton, said to be of Flemish extraction,
flourished here in the reign of Henry I. who made him a Knight. Richard dc Whatton,
the subject of this effigy, was the second son of John dc Whatton, by his wife Ela, daughter
of John Lord Bisset, Baron of Combe Bisset. He flourished in the reign of Henry III.
In the 14th and 15th of Edward the Second; Richard dc Whatton was summoned to
attend King Edward II. to aid him against Thomas Plantagcnet, Earl of Lancaster, and
the Barons his confederates. He valiantly adventured his life in the royal cause ; and on
the Earl of Lancaster being beheaded at Pontefract, all his castles, lands, and tenements,
and all those of the other rebels within the County of Northumberland and Episcopate of
Durham, were committed to the custody of this Richard de Whatton, to have and to
hold during the royal pleasure, he accounting for the receipts to the King’s Exchequer.*
This instrument is dated at Pontefract 23d March. The effigy of Richard de Whatton
is in the North aisle of Whatton Church.
On his shield has been sculptured the arms of Whatton, which were, Argent, a bend
Sable charged with three bezants -j~ between six crosslcts Gules. An inscription on the
monument runs thus :
PllIEZ PVR L’ALME DE SIRE RICHARD WHATTON, CIIIVALER.
* See the deed at length in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. XCV. i. p. 39.
f John dc Whatton charged his paternal coat with the bezants, having married into the family of Bisset , who
bore. Azure, nine bezants, 4,3, and ‘2.
49
Brass tit jWtnstcr Cljtttrij, ^Ijrppp.
This rich specimen of military and female costume in the early part of the fourteenth
century, is supposed to belong; to the family of Northwood, which are ranked by Dug-
dale among the Barons of the Realm, they having been summoned to Parliament until
the forty-ninth year of Edward the Third.
Northwood Chasteners (Chataigniers) so called from its indigenous chesnut trees, was
an extensive manor in the parish of Milton, in the Isle of Sheppy. Roger de North-
wode, who resided at the moated house here, was with Richard I. at the siege of Aeon,
in the Holy Land ; he and his Lady Bona were buried in Minster Church, and "Weever
took these for their effigies : but the costume contradicts him.* Roger de Nortliwode, his
son, procured of Henry III. his lands in Kent to be held by knight’s service instead of in
gavel-kind. His son and successor, John de Nortliwode, was with Edward I. at the siege
of Carlavcrock, where he was knighted. He was four times Sheriff of Kent in the reign
of Edward I. and was summoned to Parliament from the sixth to the twelfth year of
Edward the Second. He married Joan de Badlesmere, probably a daughter of Bartholo¬
mew Lord Badlesmere, of Leeds Castle, in Kent, who suffered death for his political con¬
duct in the reign of Edward the Second. John de Nortliwode died about 1337, and
himself and his wife are perhaps the personages represented by this beautiful brass.
There are many remarkable peculiarities about the armour of the male figure. The
female wears the hair plaited and the wimple. The pointed lappets of her mantle,
drawn over the shoulders, exhibit a lining of vair; originally a decoration of dress
composed of small pieces of different coloured furs, afterwards an heraldic distinction.
Northwood, according to Harris, bore, Ermine, a cross engrailed Gules. The bearing
on the shield appears to be a cross engrailed, between twelve chesnut leaves for North-
wood Chataigniers.
* The costume cannot, however, be always considered as an infallible guide. “ It was no uncommon thing
to erect monuments to persons from one to five hundred years after their death, representing them in the
habits of the time of the erection of the monument, and not of their own.” Original Letter of C. A. Stothard,
Memoirs, p. 131.
SO
foijn of Cltljam, Carl of Corittoall,
Was the second son of Edward the Second by his Queen Isabella, and was born at the
Palace of the English Kings at Eltham in Kent, on the Feast of the Blessed Virgin’s
Assumption 1316. In the second year of the reign of his cider brother, Edward III. he
was created Earl of Cornwall. In the following year, the King going to France to do
homage for the Dukedom of Aquitaine, he was appointed his Lieutenant for the King¬
dom, as he was also on the King’s expedition into Scotland in 1330. In the course of
the above periods he had grants of numerous Lordships from the Crown* the town of
Lostwitbiel (in the neighbourhood of Restormel Castle, the principal seat of the Earls of
Cornwall in the County), all the wreck, port dues, issues, and profits of the district, the
farm of the City of Exeter, the stannaries, and coinage or customs on stamping the tin in
the County of Devon. In 1333 and 1334 he was with King Edward III. in his expedi¬
tions into Scotland, and died at Berwick-upon-Tweed in October of the latter year.
About the festival of Christmas, the King, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, returned
out of Scotland to celebrate his obsequies in the Abbey Church of Westminster, where
he was interred on the south side of the Choir. The Prior and Convent claimed ,=£100
in lieu of his horse and armour, which, according to the custom, should have been pre¬
sented as an offering at the altar of their Church. John of Eltham was but twenty-eight
years of age at his death, and was never married. Various matches were proposed for him,
as with Joan, the daughter of the Earl of Eu ; Mary, the daughter of the Earl of Blois ;
Mary, daughter of Ferdinand Lord Lara in Castile, which last proposal came to a formal
contract, rendered abortive by his demise.
Nothing can be finer in its way than the sculpture of this effigy. There is no departure
from the very usual recumbent attitude, the hands raised in prayer and the legs crossed ;
but there is a most beautiful simplicity in the whole figure, while the details of the arms
and drapery are marked with elegant precision.
Details. Plate I. Portion of the head, with the ducal crown and mantelet depending from the lace ; orna¬
ments on the sword belt, handle, and scabbard of the sword ; scalloped border of an aqueton, or some defence
under the surcoat.
Plate II. Ornaments on the top of the hood, or basinet, whichever it may be ; plating of the gauntlets, pryck
spur and leathers, plates on the solerctte, buckle of the spur, with tongue of the strap.
* See Dugdale's Baronage, vol. I. p. 207.
js'tv Roger Sr Brno anti iLatij).
rI'HESE arc said to be the effigies of Roger de Bois and Margaret his wife. Bloomfield
thus describes the tomb in his time: “ On the East of the Church” (at Ingham in
Norfolk), “just by the rood-loft, a tomb raised, on which is the effigies of a knight in
complete armour, under his head the head and body of a Saracen, at his feet a hound.”
This inscription, he further says, was about the monument :
Monsieur Roger de Boys gist icy
Et Dame Margarete sa feme auxi
Vous qui passez par icy
Priez Dieu de leur alines eit mercy.
Elle mourut l’an n’tre Seigneur mille t recent quinsieme et il mourut fan dedit notre Seigneur 1300.
The Knight and his Lady wear long mantles, on the right shoulder of each of which is
a circular badge, bearing what is called the Tau cross of St. Anthony, and the letters
ANT h ON, in the uncial character.
Details. 1. Badge on the shoulders. 2. Compartments of the girdle, one embossed with CD.
§9iv Robert tm Bois.
This effisry, carved in oak, commemorates Sir Robert du Bois, one of the Lords of
Fersfield, in Norfolk, who died in 1311, and was buried in the church there, of which
his family were the patrons.
As early as the eleventh century, William du Bois gave two garbs or sheaves of every
three growing on certain lands of his demesne to the Priory of Thetford. Sir Robert
du Bois, his descendant, married Christian, daughter of Sir William Latimer. The arms
of Du Bois, Ermine, a cross Sable, have been painted on the surcoat of the figure.
Bloomfield describes them as extant in his time on another part of the tomb, quartering
Latimer, Gules, a cross potence Or.
Details. 1 . One of the ermiDes on the surcoat. 2, 3, 4. Decorations on the sword-belt and scabbard.
5. Sword, bell, and sheath, enlarged. O'. Leathers of the spur.
* Pope Boniface VIII. is said to have instituted an order of St. Anthony in 1298, and it is more certainly
known that in 1382 Count Albert of Bavaria founded one in Hainault, on occasion of some remarkable cures
of the disease called St. Anthony's fire, performed at a chapel dedicated to the Saint. Gentlemen of the first
rank and merit were knights of this Order: the ensigns of which arc said to have been a crutch, a hermit's
cord, and a little bell. (Morcri, Diet. Historlque, article St. Antoine.) The Tau cross has very much, it will
be observed, the form of a crutch. The surcoat of the knight is exceedingly curious. The little circles with
which it is covered must not be mistaken for ordinary mails ; the mailing of the camail shows the difference;
and indeed the skirt of the hauberk appears underneath this outward defence, which is perhaps of stamped
leather or of quilted work thickly set with studs. Mr. Stothard considered this monument to be one of those
erected some time subsequent to the death of the persons whom it represented. In strict chronological order
(Sffigj) in 9el) Cijitvrl), j&cnt.
On the authority of Harris, this effigy may be assigned to Sir John Laverick. Weever,
speaking of Ash, says, “ in this church are many ancient monuments of worthy gentle¬
men, namely, Sir Goshalls and Sir Levericks, who lie crosse-legged as Knights of Jerusa¬
lem.”* There are many interesting points about the armour of this figure. The basinet
and genouillieres are elegantly adorned with studs and leaves. The wrists of the
gauntlets are composed of small lamina: or splinters of plate.
Details. Plate I. 1. Ornament on the front of the basinet. 2. Buckle of the sword-belt. 3. Ornament on
the bottom of the genouilliere. Plate II. Profile. 1. Lace of the cumail, passing through scallops of plate,
forming the lower part of the basinet. 2. Gauntlets. 3. Part of the solerette and jambe (near the ancle);
portion of the spur, with straps.
* Fun. Monuments, p.265.
Isir Itogcr bt ivrrbcston.
This monument is in the chancel of Reepham church, Norfolk. The family of Ivcr-
deston held a manor of the same name in Reepham parish as early as the reign of Henry
the Third. Sir Roger de Kerdcston died in the 1 1th year of the reign of Edward III.
1337. His military habits are represented by the lied of stones on which he reposes.
The male and female figures delineated in Plate III. adorn tile base of his tomb. They
probably represent his children, or relatives, as mourners, and are most interesting
specimens of the costume of the fourteenth century.
Details. Plate]. Hdt of the sword, genouilliere, and part of the cuisses. Plate II. I. Side view of the
sword-hilt, with part of the belt and scabbard. 2. Agrafe or clasp of the belt. 3. Lace attaching the basinet
to the camuil. Plate III. Mourners on the base of the tomb.
©liber fngjjam.
Ilk S oi'Ey 15 I>laC,Cd ""dL'r “ ”Ch °” tllC "ortI' side of ,he <*™* “f Ingham in Nor-
twlr r \ “ “d hcir 0f Sir Joh” ***»* -lose ancestors were seated a,
lDSharn as ear,y as the middle of the twelfth century.
The firs, historical notice that we find of Sir Oliver Ingham is that in the year 1325
tta ntnet eentlt of the reign of Edward the Second, he was by the heir apparent as Duke
Aquitaine, constituted Seneschal of Goienne. He is characterised a, this period as
a young lusty, and valiant soldier. He collected an army of mercenary troops. Spa¬
wn sArragonese, and Gascons, invaded the territory of Angenois, retained contrary to
treaty by the French king, and reduced it to the dominion of the English He was
one of those persons to whom, in the early part of the following reign, the king’s writ
was directed to apprehend Mortimer Earl of Marche.
In 1340 we find him in the execution of the office of Seneschal, commanding at Bor¬
deaux, where he was suddenly surprised by the appearance of a large army of French
before the walls. He had scarcely six thousand men within the town to repel this assault ;
his only resource was his militai
y genius and presence of mind. He ordered the citizens.
wlm were well affected to the English, to follow their usual occupations, and directed that
t e banner of France should be displayed on the walls and citadel. The French fell
into the snare, thought the place had been abandoned by their enemy, entered it, and
aying aside their arms, fell to rifling the houses of the English. At this juncture
Ingham sallied forth from the castle at the head of his men, fell impetuously on the
French, and put them to the rout with great slaughter ; nearly the whole were slain or
made prisoners, and their leader, Gaston Count de Laille, with great difficulty escaped.
The valiant Seneschal* died at Bordeaux in 1344, and was buried in the church of
his family demesne at Ingham.
His heirs were a daughter, Joan, married to Roger le Strange, Lord of Knockyn; and
a grand -daughter Mary, by Elizabeth his eldest daughter, and her husband Sir John
Curzon.
The tomb of Sir Oliver is on the north side of the chancel of Ingham church.
Weever in his time describes it thus “ Under a fair tomb of freestone, very curiously
wrought, lieth the body of Sir Oliver Ingham, with his resemblance in his coat-armour,
lus belt, gilt spurs, and the blew garter about his leg ; his crest, the owl out of the ivy
bush, with a crowne on the head thereof ; he being a great traveller lyeth upon a rocke,
* Among other appointments of honour and trust, we find him serving in Parliament, Governor of Elles¬
mere and Guildford Castles, Gustos and Justice of Chester.
beholding the sunne and moone and starrcs, all very lively set forth in mettall, behold
ing the face of the earth. About the tomb twenty-four mourners.”*
Some points of this description agree very well with the effigy as represented in the
plates ; while others supply us with particulars which the injuries of time would have
otherwise effaced. The crest on the helmet is broken off ; so is the right leg: there is
no garter on the left. Weever mistook the fillet of the genouillicre for a garter. Sir
Oliver was not a knight of that order. In the painting which remains on the back
ground of the figure, we do not observe the planets as mentioned by Weever. A forest
is represented, in which wild animals and beasts of prey are roaming at large ; in one
corner an archer clothed in
“ Cote anil hood of green,"
winds his bugle ; in the other his companion is seen bending his bow. This would
seem to indicate the extensive forests of the duchy of Aquitaine, over which Ingham
was Seneschal, or his addiction to the chase. He reposes on the rock, or rather a bed of
pebbles, mentioned by Weever, not improbably indicative of his martial hardihood ;f an
idea that has not escaped Shakspeare :
- “ The tyrant custom
Has made the jlinly and steel couch of war
My thricc-drivcn bed of down."
Details. Plate I. Helmet with the mantelet. Portion of the mantelet enlarged. Figure as originally
painted. The surcoal bears, Party per pale Or and Vert, a cross moline Gules. Belt and clasp. Scabbard,
mountings with portions of the belt attached. Plate II. Painting at the back of the tomb; genouillieres or
knee-pieces ; cuisses with studs ; some links of the lower part of the hauberk.
* Fun. Monuments, edit. 1631, p. SI*.
f Another conjecture is that when an effigy is thus placed, it represents the knight as shipwrecked, and
thrown upon “ the beached verge of the salt flood." We believe that examples of figures of this kind are rare ;
in this work only one other occurs, that of Sir Roger de Kerdeston. If the purpose of the sculptor had been
to represent Ingham as shipwrecked we should have expected a back ground of marine objects. '1 hose painted
on the tomb before us are, on the contrary, altogether terrene. The attitudes of Ingham and Kerdeston are
very similar, each appears as if roused from his rude bed of slumber, and laying his hand on the hilt of his
56
from a brass
latf in lug'll am Church Norfolk
Sir Jtttlcs Uc Stapleton nnB fjts ELatJj?.
One of those engraved plates familiarly termed brasses. It is on the floor of the chancel
of Ingham church, Norfolk, and commemorates Sir Miles Stapleton, Knight of the
Garter, and his wife, Joan, daughter of Sir Oliver Ingham, and widow of Lord Strange,
of Knoekyn. He died on Wednesday before the feast of St. Nicholas, 38 Edward III.
(December 4, 1364.) The lady, perhaps from courtesy as a coheiress, is placed on the
knight’s right hand. An elegant crocheted gothic canopy and pinnacles surmount the
figures. These have suffered some mutilation. Into the verge of the stone has been
inserted a fillet of brass, with this inscription :
Priez pour les almes de Monseur Miles de Stapleton, et Dame Johanne, sa femme, fille de Monseur Oliver
de Ingham, fonfiouca Be ccetc maiaon ; qc Bicu Be lout almes eit pitie.
That portion printed in the black letter alone now remains, the rest is supplied from
Bloomfield.
militant of imtfielB
Was the second son of Edward III. by his Queen Philippa, and was born at Hatfield,
in Yorkshire, in 1335. He was christened after his maternal grandfather, William
Etirl of Hainault, died in his childhood, and was buried in the cathedral at York. The
effigy is nearly four feet six inches in height, and may therefore be supposed that of a
child about eleven years of age. This is a good example of the domestic attire of a
noble youth of the day. On his head is a circlet surmounted by pearls. A rich justc-
au-corps (probably embroidered cloth of gold*) covers his figure. A mantle, the
edge of which is indented into the form of a running pattern of ornamental foliage, falls
over his breast and shoulders, and depends behind to the ancles. His shoes are divided
into fretwork compartments, filled up with quatrefoils. His head is supported by angels,
and his feet rest on a couchant lion. He wears a rich jewelled girdle round his hips ; a
characteristic mark of the monuments of this, and of many of the following century. It
is not easy to imagine how a cincture thus placed sustained itself.
Details. Plate II. Profile. I. Portion of the circlet and pearls. 2. Ornament on the juste-au-corps, or
body coat. 3. Ornament on the shoes.
* Thus Chaucer, describing the attire of a gallant youth :
" Embrouded was he, as it were a mede.
All full of freshe floures white and rede.
- Short was his goune " -
a Blancfyfront,
In Alvechurch, Worcestershire. This figure is termed by Nash “ a knight of the holy
voyage adopting the very probable conjecture, that the crossed legs indicated a vow of
pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood call it the Knight
of the Green, who they say resided on Wetherock-hill ; where they still show the site of
his moated house.
A grant is extant, of the time of Edward the Third, of certain lands in the tenure of
Thomas Kcmpe and John Kempe, to Thomas Blanchfront. Sir John Blanchfront, his
descendant, is mentioned in an instrument A. D. 1346, the 21st of the reign of Edward
the Third. This personage, therefore, the effigy may be conjectured to represent.
Asa specimen of an elegant variety of the costume of a knight in the fourteenth cen¬
tury, the beautiful and spirited etching before us possesses great interest. The basinet
assumes the form of the double curved gothic arch, and the heavy close helmet of the
tourney is supplied by the aventaille, or ventaille, attached to the basinet, and thrown
back to show the face ; roundels, tastefully filled up with roses, are affixed to the
armour at the shoulders, the elbows, and on the belt. From each of the two roundels on
the paps descends a chain, fastening the handle of the sword. The lower part of the
surcoat is gathered into numerous folds, and is closed in the front by a row of studs or
buttons. Plate No. 2 exhibits the profile of the figure, the lacing of the surcoat clearly
and sharply defined. The rowel of one of the spurs, a rare exception, is fortunately
unbroken.
Cffigy in tijc Cljurtij of Cetoiasburj).
This figure has not been appropriated by Mr. Stothard, and the topographical works on
Gloucestershire afford no light by which it may be identified. It lies under an arch in
the wall of the North aisle of the Church. The hands are raised in the attitude of
prayer, and the bare feet indicate, perhaps, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The details of
the armour, mail and plate, are curious. The cuisses, as in two or three preceding ex¬
amples, are remarkable : they appear to be composed of fluted steel intermixed with studs.
Front and profile views of the figure arc given. The herald may perhaps discover the
family to which it belongs by the bearing on the shield and surcoat, a chevron between
three lions’ heads langucd.
58
EFFIGY C9V A If. I .A jw i ' III V 1! O^T.
At AlverliurcL. Warpril rrfliirr.
-—
§?»' iHimpbrcp iUttlclnirj).
This effigy is in Holbeach church, Lincolnshire. The border of the surcoat is formed
into leaves. The cnisses are Semite with cinquefoil studs. Relative to the application
of nails to body-armour, the following passage from Philip de Comines seems to he in
point: “The Dukes of Berry and Bretagne were at their ease upon their hobbies,
armed only with gilt nails sown upon sattin, that they might weigh the less.”*
Dmih, 1. Roundel of „ ,he clb„„. s. 0ne of the „ml)„,raen„ 0( the orm„ntri w|e.
3. aide-view of the handle of the .word, with lhat portion of the .cabb.rd which remain.. 4. Cinquefoil .lod
on the cuisses. 1
§?>tr CJornas Catotte,
This monument is in the north wall of the chancel of Ightliam church, in Kent. It
commemorates Sir Thomas Cawne, who resided at Nulcomb, a manor in the adjoining
parish of Seal, in the time of Edward the Third. The effigy affords a rich example of
the armour of the time.
Details. 1. Ornamented rim of the basinet and lace by which the camail is attached. 2. Gauntlet, with its
ornaments enlarged. 3. Portion of the girdle enlarged.
Cfftsj) at ^tainbrop, Durham.
This figure is unappropriated; but belongs, there can be little doubt, to one of the
family of Ncvill of Raby. It wears a circlet, in form resembling a ducal coronet. A
wimple covering the chin. Hair braided. A long mantle attached to the shoulders, by a
lace apparently passed through two metallic loops, which are adorned with lions’ heads.
Memoirs of Philip de Comities, hook i.
59
IMtUiam of Wintissor anti IManclj tit la Cour.
Edward gave another of his sons by Philippa the name of William, who died so young
that nothing more is known of him than the place of his birth, as affixed to his name,
and that he was buried at Westminster, in the chapel of St. Edmund, in the abbey church.
In the same tomb are also deposited the remains of Blanch de la Tour, their third daugh¬
ter, so called from her birthplace, the Tower of London. She was born and died in 1340.
Their effigies in alabaster, scarcely eighteen inches in length, arc placed on an altar-
tomb. Sandford says that an inscription on brass, which had been affixed on the monu¬
ment, was not extant in his time. The costume of the male figure much resembles that
of William of Hatfield. The cote liardie of the female, Handles, jewelled stomacher,
girdle, cordon and clasps of the mantle, are worthy attention.
" Details. Plate T. One of the fennails of the Princess's mantle. Plate II. Ornaments on the Prince's girdle.
Plate III. Details of the Princess's circlet and reticulated head-dress.
Joint wtratfoiti, ardjbtsljop of Cantnlutvp.
John Stratford was born at Stratford-upon-Avon, in Warwickshire, and was educated
at Oxford. Being well read in the canon and the civil law, he became Archdeacon of
Lincoln. Shortly after, Edward the Second made him his Secretary, and one of his
Privy Council. Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, constituted him his prin¬
cipal official, and Dean of the Arches. On the deposition and death of Edward the
Second, his ability stood so high in the estimation of the Queen and her son, that he
was appointed Lord Chancellor of England. On the death of Mepham, in 1333, he was,
at the King’s special recommendation to the Pope, elevated to the Archbishopric of
Canterbury. The King going abroad to prosecute his pretensions to the Crown of
France, constituted the Archbishop Custos of the Realm in his absence, a circumstance
which eventually drew on Stratford a severe persecution ; for, Edward having disbursed
vast sums of money to his followers and friends in the expedition, applied to the Arch¬
bishop for more, who seeing that it was impossible to make further levies on the King’s
subjects, who had lately so liberally supplied him, advised him to return home. Edward
ttxtxttx:
is said to have made his creditors in Flanders believe that Stratford was entrusted with
large sums sufficient for paying their demands, and Stratford was charged, on the King’s
return, with having embezzled money which had really never been in his possession. If so
noble-minded a monarch as Edward could have acted advisedly in such a matter, we
should pronounce him at once the bravest and the meanest of his race ; but the mys¬
teries of court intrigue cannot at this period be unravelled, so as to extenuate or confirm
the imputation. The circumstances of the case are, however, highly in favour of Strat¬
ford s innocence; for, a Committee of Bishops and Lords being appointed to examine the
accusation against him, their inquiry was never prosecuted, and Stratford was pardoned
at the solicitation of the entire parliament. Little, indeed, did Stratford deserve a charge
of peculation. So disinterested and indefatigable was his character, that he crossed the
channel two-and-thirty times on various public missions, besides making many journeys
to the Scottish border, yet received altogether for his pains not more than ^.300 from
the Kings Exchequer. Restored to the King's favour, he was permitted to pass the
fifteen following years of his life in tranquillity, and died at his palace at Mayfield, in
Sussex, in 1348. Stratford’s character was strongly imbued with the mild virtues of the
Gospel, so often obliterated by the temptations incident on high station. Gentle and
merciful, rather lenient than rigorous to offenders, bountiful to the poor, he endeavoured
to win men’s hearts by that charity which considers every human being suffering from
error or misfortune, as a brother. He munificently founded a college at Stratford-upon-
Avon, his native place, and was interred in a tomb of alabaster in Canterbury cathedral,
on the south side of the high altar. The effigy of Stratford is a beautiful work of art,
although it has suffered some mutilation. He is habited in his mitre, cope, and gloves
(the hands are fractured). Under his right arm is the staff of his crosier, or archiepis-
copal cross (the head broken off). Over his left hangs the jewelled maniple for wiping
any defilement from the sacramental cnp. Under the cope appears the border of his
dalmatic, and beneath the dalmatic a richly edged tunic. Fastened to his breast and
shoulders by pins (of gold), is the consecrated pall with which the archbishops were
invested by the Holy See, and for which it exacted a heavy pecuniary acknowledgment.
Details. 1. Crocketed edge of the mitre. 2. Cape of the cope. 3. One of the pins fastening the pall.
Jung Csiuart) tfje CinrS,
Surnamed of Windsor, was the eldest son of Edward the Second by Isabella of France,
and was born at the Castle of Windsor on the 13th of November, 1312. In a Parlia¬
ment assembled at York in 1322, he was created Prince of Wales and Duke of
Aquitaine. On the formal deposition of his father, he ascended the throne of England
on the 25th of January, 1326, being then about fourteen years of age, and was on the
1st of February following girt with the sword of knighthood by his cousin Henry Earl
of Lancaster, and crowned at Westminster by Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canter¬
bury. The Parliament appointed twelve guardians for the King during his nonage,
consisting of five Bishops, two Earls, and five Barons.*
By consent of these and of the Parliament, Henry Tort-col, Earl of Lancaster, Lin¬
coln, Leicester, and Derby, as Earl of Leicester, Hereditary High Seneschal of England,
(son of the celebrated Thomas Earl of Lancaster, the idol of the people, who was beheaded
by Edward the Second,) was appointed guardian of the youthful King. Such were the
nominal directors of Edward’s Government, while Roger Mortimer, by his close inti¬
macy and influence with the Queen, his mother, was the real. The first aet of the first
year of his reign was to march against the Scots, who had made an inroad on the
borders ; in which expedition he was assisted by many Flemings and foreigners, under
Sir John de Hainault, brother of William Earl of Hainault, who had aided the Queen
and her son against the Spensers in Edward the Seconds reign. In this expedition a
very remarkable occurrence took place, by which the King’s life or liberty was endan¬
gered. While the English army lay encamped on the river Weir, Earl Douglas, with
two hundred men-at-arms, crossed the stream at some distance above their position.
Advancing at a cautious and “ stealthy pace,” they entered the English camp. At every
challenge of the “fixed centinels,” Douglas exclaimed, “ No ward? Ha! St. George!”
as if to chide their negligence. Each soldier on his post thought this to be the reproof
of the nightly “rounds” directed to himself, and thus Douglas and his band passed on
until he came to the royal tent, into which it is said he entered, and aimed a blow at the
sleeping Monarch of England, which was warded oft' by his Chaplain who was slain by
interposing his own body as a shield to his liege lord. The King leaped up, seized his
sword, which hung at the head of bis couch, the alarm was given, and Douglas made
good his retreat, from his bold but abortive enterprize, through the English host, with
* These were, Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, William de Mellon, Archbishop of York, John
Stratford, Bishop of Winchester, Thomas Cobham, of Worcester, and Adam Orleton, of Hereford, the infamous
tool of the Queen and Mortimer. The Earls were, Thomas of Brotherton, the Earl Marshal, Edmund of
Woodstock, Earl of Kent, both uncles of the King; the Barons, John Lord of Warren, Thomas of Wales,
Henrv of Percy, Oliver de Ingham, and John of Ros.
some loss. Thus nurtured as it were in the din of arms, the master-mind of Edward
took a turn towards those military undertakings, which subsequently raised the martial
glory of his country to the highest pitch.
On the termination of this expedition, by the retreat of the enemy within their own
frontier, the King returned to London ; and shortly after an embassy was sent to his
ally, William Earl of Hainault, to demand, on the King’s part, one of his daughters in
marriage. The Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, the principal envoy, repairing to the
Court of Hainault at Valenciennes, the Earl’s five daughters were produced before him
when the Bishop gave his judgment and choice for Philippa, the youngest of them all*
being scarcely fourteen years of age. A dispensation for the union of the parties at this
early period was granted by the Pope, the bride was conducted to England, and the
marriage was solemnized at York on the 24th February, 1327-8, Edward being then
only in his fifteenth year. Charles the Fair, his uncle. King of France, now dying, he
claimed the crown in right of his descent from Isabella, his mother; his plea being,
that, although the Salic law or custom excluded females from the actual Government, it
had no such operation as regarded their male issue. An embassy was forthwith dis¬
patched to France, to interdict the coronation of Philip de Valois, which, however, took
place within twelve days after its arrival: and thus subsequently arose the wars of Edward
in France in prosecution of this claim.
Until the year 1330, Roger Mortimer, Baron of Wigmore, and now Earl of Marche,*
by his influence with the Queen (whose character is further blackened by the imputa
tion ol a criminal connection with him), had been the actual Regent of the Realm,
while Ilcnry Earl of Lancaster, and the Lords the young King’s guardians, were
excluded from any real power in administration of state affairs. Mortimer ruled the
Queen ; and, through the natural influence of a mother on a son of such tender years,
employed according to his pleasure the authority of the King himself. By his machina¬
tions and the Queen’s, Edward had consented to the death of his uncle Edmund Earl of
Kent. Mortimer’s luxury, cupidity, and pride, had now reached the highest point. On
the other hand, the King had attained his eighteenth year, his eyes were opened, and
his high spirit determined to govern for itself. The Earl of Lancaster and the offended
Barons were not slow to aid this resolution. Mortimer w^as seized in Nottingham
Castle by William Lord Montacute. He and the Queen had thought themselves secure
in this stronghold from the attempts of their enemies. The Queen every night caused
the keys of the castle to be delivered to her by the Constable, Sir William Eland, and
kept them under her pillow ; but Lord Montacute went to the Constable, and demanded,
by the King’s authority, to be secretly admitted within the fortress, for the puqiose of
seizing on Mortimer. At midnight, therefore, on the 19tli of October, Montacute, and
the Lords his associates, repaired, under the previous direction of the Governor, to the
mouth of a subterraneous passage hewn out in ancient days by the Saxons, which led
under the hill, and opened into the donjon, or master tower of the castle. Entrance
thus gained, they surprized and seized Mortimer in his chamber, notwithstanding the
* He was created Earl of Marche in Parliament at Salisbury, in August 132S.
entreaties of the Queen, who hearing the noise of the confederate hand in an adjoining
room, guessing their errand, and thinking her son was with them, exclaimed, m the
French tongue, “ Fair son, spare, spare the gentle Mortimer !" He was removed under
a strong guard to the Tower of London, articles of attainder were speedily exhibited
against him, confirmed by the Parliament, and he was adjudged to execution. On the
29th of November he suffered death, like a malefactor of the vulgar class, upon the
common sallows. . .
In 1337, King Edward having fortified liis purposes by alliances with the Earl ot
Flanders, Jacob Von Artaveldt, the wealthy brewer who ruled the people of Ghent, and
the Duke of Bavaria, laid a formal claim to the Crown of France. In the following year
he repaired to Cologne to meet the Emperor of Germany, who received him in great
pomp, and dispensed with the usual ceremony that Kings should kiss his feet. Two
thrones were erected in the open market-place at Cologne; on one was seated the
emperor, in his imperial robes, having in his hands the sceptre and the orb of empire,
behind him stood a knight, who held over his head a naked sword. He there denounced
the King of France as disloyal, treacherous, and unworthy the protection ot the Empire,
and defied him. He constituted, at the same time, by charter, King Edward his Deputy
and Vicar General of the Empire, granting him full power over the territory on this
side Cologne. King Edward lost no time in summoning the German feudatories to
assemble in Flanders in July of the following year, to open the campaign against the
French King by the siege of Cambray.
Thus commenced the first hostilities by Edward the Third in prosecution of his right.
Edward soon after formally placed the arms of France, the golden lilies semee *m an
azure field, in the dexter quarter of his royal arms, and underneath the motto, “ Dieu et
mon droit.”
In 1341, the claims of John Earl of Montfort and Charles of Blois to the Duchy of
Bretagne (the cause of the first being espoused by England and of the latter by France)
revived hostilities between the countries. The contest between these two personages was
only decided by the death of Charles de Blois at the battle of Auray, in 1304, which
gave the Duchy to his rival.
In the year 1344, King Edward held his Round Table at Windsor, encouraging a
romantic spirit of chivalry among his nobles, by reducing in some degree to practice the
legendary tales of Arthur’s Court. In the same policy, as a reward and incentive for
gallant deeds, he shortly after instituted the most noble Order of the Garter.
In 1346, Philip of France sent his son, the Duke of Normandy, with an army of a
hundred thousaud men, to invade the Duchy of Guicnne. Edward embarked imme¬
diately to the relief of his province, with the very disproportionate force of thirty thou¬
sand. Baffled by contrary winds from landing in Guienne, he made a descent in Nor¬
mandy, where Philip, with an overwhelming force, endeavoured to cut oft all retreat.
He however forced the passage of the Somme at Blanchetaque, and awaiting the army
* Charles VI. of France, in order to mark a difference between ihe French and English arms, reduced the
number of Ihe lilies to three, but nur Henry V. defeated the intention doing the same.
GF
of Philip in a well-chosen spot, at the village of Crccv, on the 26th August, 1346, gave
him battle, and totally routed his army, with the loss of 30,000 men, 1,200 knights, the
Earl of Alemjon, the French King’s brother, the King of Bohemia, his ally, and fifteen
nobles of the highest rank. The active glory of this victory belonged to the gallant
Black Prince.
While the King was absent in France, David King of Scotland, instigated by the
intrigues ot the French Court, entered England with a powerful army, and laid waste the
country with fire and sword as far as Durham. Their progress was arrested by the
spirited Queen Philippa, the Archbishop of York, and the Lords Marchers, at Nevill's
Cross, about two miles from Durham, where they were totally routed ; and David Bruce,
their king, taken, and carried to London, where he was confined in the Tower.
In 1356, the Black Prince having made an incursion, with an army not exceeding
12,000 men, into Languedoc, he was pursued on his return by John, who had now
succeeded to the Crown of France, who came up with him near Poictiers, and there
encountered a signal defeat, with the loss of his liberty. The dreadful thunderstorm to
which the English army was exposed before Chartres, induced Edward, who thought it
was an admonition from Heaven, to check his ambition and grant the French a peace,
which was but ill observed.
Enough has been said in this brief way to denote the energy and grandeur of his
character as a monarch, and to show what he did in arms for his country. He was
equally alive to her commercial interests and to the encouragement of the arts as they
were practised in his day. The sun of Edward’s glory, however, declined under a cloud.
That vanquisher of the invincible. Death, laid the Black Prince low ; and the sword of
Bertram du Guesclin, Constable of France under Charles V. redeemed his country’s
honour and dominion. Towards the close of Edward's reign, of all the English con¬
quests and possessions in France only Calais remained.
The King’s character in the decline of life, after the death of Philippa liis Queen, who
deceased in 1369,* is not exempt from imputation of that frailty which has so often
tarnished the silver honours of the aged head. Dame Alice Pcrers was taken into his
highest favour about five years after the above event. She was a woman of exceeding
beauty. At a tournament held in Smithfield by the King’s command, she rode as “Lady
of the Sun” from the Tower of London to Smithfield (the Campus Martins of the City),
attended by a procession of knights armed for the jousts, each having his horse led by
the bridle by a lady.
An interesting description of the King’s death-bed is to be found in an old chronicle
often referred to by writers of his history. He is therein described as lying on his sick
couch (his disease unexpectedly assuming a mortal character), “talking rather of hawk-
* She died at Windsor, on the 15th of August, in the most pious spirit of resignation. Her husband and
her youngest son, Thomas of Woodstock, were present at this parting scene, overwhelmed with griel. She
requested that her debts might be exactly paid, her donations for religious uses fulfilled, and that her body
should be buried at Westminster. A sumptuous monument with her effigy was erected for her by her husband
in the Abbey there. It is still extant, and is one of those few connected with the English monarchy, which the
untimely end of the author of this work prevented him from delineating for his collection.
65
ing and hunting, and such trifles, than any thing that pertained to his salvation," trust¬
ing to the soothing assurances of the Lady Percrs that “ he should well recover, and
not die:” who, whilst the King had the use of speech to communicate his pleasure, sat at
his bed’s head, “ much like a dog that waited greedily to take or snatch whatsoever his
master would throw from the board.” This authority also states, that as soon as she saw
the hand of death was on the King, she took the rings from his fingers, and bade him
adieu! All his retainers and dependants also “forsook him, and fled.” Thus he
lay deserted in his extreme hour by all those who had existed on his bounty, except a
single priest of the household, “ who approached his bed, and boldly exhorted him to
lift up his heart in penitence to God, and implore mercy for his sins.” The dying King,
touched with this simple, honest address, bursting into tears, faintly ejaculated, “ Jcsu!”
the hist word God gave him power to pronounce. The priest continued his admonitions
that he would show, by such signs as he still might, his repentance, his forgiveness of
his enemies, and his trust in God. He replied by deep sighs, by lifting up his eyes and
hands to heaven in prayer, by laying his hand on his heart, in token of his forgiveness,
from his heart, of all who had offended him. Then taking the crucifix in his hand, with
every sign of love and reverence of Him whose suffering for his sake it represented, he
resigned his spirit to his Creator.
Edward the Third's death took place at his manor of Shenc, near Richmond, in
Surrey, on the 21st June, 1377, in the sixty-fourth year of his age, he having reigned
fifty years and nearly five months. He directed by his last will, dated from that ancient
seat of the English Monarchs, Havering-at-the-Bower, in Essex, 25th June, 1377, that
he should be interred at Westminster Abbey, among his ancestors of famous memory,
but without excessive pomp. With this view, he limited the number of waxen tapers
and mortaries that were to be placed during the ceremony about his corpse. He lies on
the south side of the Chapel of Edward the Confessor within a tomb of marble, on which
is his effigy of copper, as represented in the plates ; it has originally been gilt. His
epitaph on the verge of his tomb is thus read by Sandford :
Hicdecus Anglorum, flos regum preteritorum,
Forma futurorum, rex clemens, pax populorum,
Tcrtius Edwardus, regni complens jubileum,
Invictus pardus, bellis pollens Machabeum.
Pruspcre dum vixit, regnum piclate revixit,
Armipolens rexit; jam celo, Celice Rex, sit.
The effigy of the King is in a grand and simple style. The hair flows over the neck,
and he wears the forked beard of the time. The mantle is fastened to his shoulders by
a broad band, which extends across the breast. The dalmatic is underneath, gathered
in a few broad and beautifully-disposed folds. He has had a sceptre in either hand,
denoting his double dominion.
Details. Plate 1. 1. Band attaching the mantle to the body. 2. Pattern on the border of the dalmatic.
3. Front view of the ornamented boot. Plate II. Profile. 1. Portions of the sceptres. 2. Side-view of
the boot.
Cttoarti, tjjt JJlarfe fritter.
D DWARD, commonly called the Black Prince,
eldest son of Edward III. and Queen Philippa,
was born at Woodstock, on the 15th of June, 1330.
4th Edward III. Before he had attained his seventh
year, the King, his father, granted to him the County
of Chester, the Castles of Chester, Beeston, Rhydd-
lan, Flint, &c., and created him Duke of Cornwall.
In the 17th Edward III. he was invested with a coro¬
net, a gold ring, and a silver rod, as Prince of Wales.
Three years after, in 1346, being then but sixteen years
old, this valiant Prince fought and gained the battle
of Cressy ; and continued distinguishing himself in
military atchievements, till he won the field of Poitiers
with 8 or 9,000 English against 60,000 French, taking
kJolin, King of France, prisoner: this battle was fought September 19th, 1356. In
1362, King Edward invested his gallant son with the Principality of Aquitaine.*
Here he did not long remain inactive; for Peter the Cruel, King of Spain, having
been driven from his dominions, the Prince of Wales espoused his cause, passed
with an army into Spain, and gaiued the battle of Najara, by which he restored an
ungrateful Prince to a throne he had but too justly forfeited. Peter the Cruel once
more reigning in his dominions, evaded paying the sums he had promised to the
English Prince ; who in order to discharge the expenses incurred by the war, had
recourse to levying taxes in Aquitaine, which furnished a pretext for revolt in that
province. In the midst of these difficulties the Black Prince died of a slow and
lingering disorder, which first seized him in Spain ; he expired on Trinity Sunday,
in the Palace at Westminster, June 8th, 1376, aged 46.
* The initial letter of this page, representing Edward III. giving to his son the Prince of Wales the
grant of the Principality of Aquitaine, is taken from an illumination placed at the head of a copy of tho
grant, in the British Museum. Bibl". Cotton0. Nero. D. G.
The Prince of Wales was married to Joan, Countess of Kent, commonly called,
on account of her beauty, the Fair Maid of Kent. She was the daughter of Edmund
of Woodstock, second son of Edward the First. By this Lady he had but two
sons, Edward, who died at the age of seven years, and Richard, afterwards King
of England. The Black Prince had also before marriage, two natural sons, Sir
John Sounder and Sir Roger de Clarendon ; the latter bore for his arms, Or, on a
bend sable, three ostrich feathers argent; the quills transfixed through as many
scrolls of the first.
Various reasons have been assigned for Edward's bearing the surname of the
Black Prince; the most generally received, and perhaps the best entitled to
credit, is that it arose from his wearing black armour. A circumstance which may
throw some light on this point, and correct an error in another particular, appears
to have been entirely overlooked. The three Ostrich Feathers within the Coronet,
as at present borne, is generally understood to have been the Cognizance of the
Black Prince, but on strict investigation, although his Will, his Seals, and his
Tomb, give the most minute evidence on the subject, there exists no authority
whatever for this disposition of the Ostrich Feathers. We are told that after the
battle of Cressy, the banner of John, the old and blind King of Bohemia, there
slain, was found in the field ; upon it was wrought— sable, three ostrich feathers,
with the motto Ich Dien; which cognizance, in memory of the day, was adopted by
prince Edward. By what authority this account is supported, is uncertain ; but
the German words Ich Dien and Houmout on the tomb, seem to give it probability.
Although there is no farther proof that the feathers were borne by the King
of Bohemia, yet it is not a little remarkable, that his granddaughter Anne, bore
an ostrich as her Badge. Instead of the feathers either being worn within
the coronet, or as a crest, the evidence on the tomb is contrary, they are borne
as a coat, on an escutcheon. From the subjoined extract of the Prince's
will, in the passage describing the man and horse, armed and covered with the
badges, it is clear that the former bore them on his surcoat, and the latter on the
barding.* We cannot, therefore, be surprised, if the Prince of Wales wore such
• There is a curious coincidence, bearing strong evidence on this point, in a beautiful manuscript, con¬
taining in French verse, an account of the latter part of the life of Richard II. written and illuminated by
one who was an eyewitness to what he describes. In the second illumination Richard II. is represented
knighting Henry of Monmouth. The king is on horseback, in armour, his surcoat and the barding of tire
horse is powdered with ostrich leathers, and above him appears a pennon emblazoned in like manner.
Bibl\ Had".
Edward the Black Prince leaves to his son Richard in his will, “ a blue vestment embroidered with gold
roses and ostrich feathers.” The feathers, and other devices of the Black Prince are also alluded to in the
two following passages of the said Will “ We give and devise our Hall of Ostrich Feathers of black
Tapestry with a red border wrought with Swans with Ladies Heads, that is to say, a back piece, eight
pieces for the sides and two for the Benches to the said Church of Canterbury, &c., &c.’ - “ Item, we
give and devise to our said son the Hull of Arras of the deeds of Saludyn, and also the Hall of worsted
embroidered with Mermaids of the Sea, and the border paly red and black, embroidered with swans with
Ladies Heads and Ostrich Feathers.”
sable trappings, (which must be inferred from the extract alluded to,) that he should
have received the surname of the Black Prince. It may be necessary to remark,
that the first notice of this surname occurs soon after the battle of Cressy.
The first part of the Prince’s Will which relates. to his Tomb and Burial, is on
many accounts so interesting here, that a translation from the French Original* it
is presumed, will not be unacceptable.
“ In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. We
“ Edward, eldest son of the King of England and of France, Prince of Wales,
Duke of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester, the Seventh day of June, the year of
“ Grace One Thousand, Three Hundred, and Seventy-six, in our Chamber within
“ the Palace of our very redoubted Lord and Father at Westminster, being in good
“ and sound memory, and having consideration to the short duration of human
“ frailty, and as the time of the resolution of the diviue will is not certain, and de-
“ siring always to be ready with the aid of God to bis disposing, we ordain and
“ make our Testament in the manner which follows. First we give our soul to God
“ our Creator, and to the holy blessed Trinity, and to the glorious Virgin Mary,
“ and to all the Saints: and our body to be buried in the Cathedral Church of the
“ Trinity of Canterbury, (where the body of the true martyr, my Lord St. Thomas,
“ reposes,) in the middle of the Chapel of our Lady Undercroft, right before the
“ Altar, so that the end of our Tomb towards the foot may be ten feet distant
"from the Altar; and that the same tomb shall be made of marble, of good
" masonry. And we will, that round the said Tomb shall be twelve escutcheons
“ of laton, each of the breadth of a foot, six of which shall be of our arms
“ entire, and the other six of ostrich feathers ; and that upon each escutcheon
“ shall be written, that is to say, upon those of our arms, and upon the others of
“ ostrich feathers, Houmout. And above the Tomb shall be made a table of laton
“ overgilt, of the breadth and length of the same Tomb, upon which we will, that an
" image in relieved work of laton gilt, shall be placed in memory of us, all armed
“ in steel for battle, with our arms quartered ; and my visage, [et le visage mie] with
“ our helmet of the leopard put under the head of the image. And we will, that
“ upon our Tomb, in the place where it may be the most clearly seen and read,
“ shall be written that which follows, in the manner that shall be best advised by
“ our executors, f * * * * * * And we will, that at that hour,
“ that our body shall be brought into the town of Canterbury as far as to the
" Priory, that two coursers covered with our arms and two men armed in our
“ arms, and in our helmets, shall go before our said body ; that is to say, the one
“ for war with our arms quartered, and the other for peace with our badges of
“ ostrich feathers, with four banners of the same suit; and that every one of those
“ who bear the said banners, shall have a chapeau of our arms ; and that he who
» Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Registry at Lambeth.
f As this epitaph is nearly the same as that on the tomb, it is omitted ; but the inscription, giving the
time of the Black Prince’s death, with his titles, &c. <S:c., is not ordered in the above Will, although it is
found on the tomb.
“ shau he armed for war, shall have a man armed bearing after him a black pennon
“ with ostrich feathers. And we will, that the herse shall be made between the
“ high Altar and the Choir, within which we will that our body shall be placed,
“ until the vigils, masses, and the divine services shall be done; which services so
“ done, our body shall be borne to the aforesaid Chapel of our Lady, where it shall
“ be buried.”
The Prince's Tomb is not in the Lady Chapel, as ordered in the Will, but on
the south side of the Chapel of the Holy Trinity. In other respects it nearly
agrees with the above order. The Tomb is of Sussex marble, divided into sixteen
quatrefoiled panels, six on each side, two at the head, and two at the foot of
the Tomb, in each of which are fixed escutcheons of copper, enamelled alter¬
nately with the arms and badges of the Black Prince. Above those, with the
arms, is engraved on scrolls of copper, IpOUmOUt ; and above those, with the
badges in a similar manner, 3fcl) iDtnir. The effigy is of copper gilt, and lies upon
the Tomb on a table of the same metal : it represents the Black Prince in armour,
his head resting on his helmet, on which is the chapeau surmounted by a leopard
crowned, having a file of three points about his neck. The countenance of the
Prince possesses fine character. He is represented with long mustachios, which fall
on each side over the camail, with which his face is closely enveloped; his beard is
almost entirely concealed. On the Inicinet is a rich coronet, the circle of which was
once set with stones or glass. The manner of attaching the camail to the baciuet by
the vervelles, or staples, with a silken lace, is here very clearly explained* The
plates are very evident beneath the coat armour, which is emblazoned in relief with
the arms of England and Prance quarterly, overall a file of three points. Lhe
gauntlets are armed with bosses or broches on the middle joints of the fiugers.f
The girdle is ornamented with gilt leopards’ heads within circles, on a blue enamelled
ground; in the centre within a quatrefoil, a leopard similarly enamelled. The
sword is of the most beautiful workmanship. The pommel is ornamented with
a leopard’s head enamelled as the c ircles in the girdle. The hilt is of wirework.
The sheath is richly wrought, engraved, and enamelled ; its whole length is set with
lapis lazuli in lozenges. The dagger is wanting. The solerets are of a preposterous
length. It is uncertain what animal is intended at the feet. Considering how
beautifully the whole of this figure is finished, it is singular that the armour is
represented without either buckles, straps, or hinges. About the table of the
Tomb are the inscriptions, engraved on plates of copper; the first is at the head of
the Tomb, and the second commences on the south side and finishes on the north.
* Pour six onces de soie de diverses couleurs & faire les las it mcttre les caraaux aus dits bacinets.
Computum. Steph. de la Fontaine, argentar. llog. 1. Jan. 1345).
For six ounces of silk of various colours, to make laces to fasten the camails to the said bacinets.
t In a Trial by Combat adjudged between John de Vesconti and Sir Thomas do la Marche, fought
before Edward Ill. in close Lists at Westminster ; Sir Thomas de la Marche gained the advantage by
striking the Bosses of Steel on his gauntlet, called Gadlinys, into the face of his adversary. — Collins's Life
of Eduard.. Prince of Wales.
Et riche bacinet li fist on apporter.
Guns a broches de ter. oui sont au rodouter.
MS. Bertrandi Gnrscliui.
Gp gift le Bobir prince monP ©btoarb alfhej filj Tut trefnoble JRoP ©btoarO
tiers labls prince B'aqultame (t be ©ales tmc be ©ornelnallle et Counte be
©cftre ql moiuft en la fefte be la Crlnlte qeftolt le Miij. lour be jupn Ian be
grace mil trolfcen? septante slime lalmebe ql bleu elt mercf amen.
<5u qt paffej obe bourpe dole : par la on ce coips repofe :
6ntent ce qe te blral : g>tcome te hire le sap :
'Gid come tu es le autlel fu : Cu terras tlel come le su :
De la-moit ne-penfal le mpe : Cantcome fabol la ble :
^n fie abol fnb rlcbelfe : SDont le p fls gub nobleffe :
<5erre melons- it gtib trelor : sDraps cplbaur argent it oi :
Wes oie fu tea polues (t cljettlfs : per fonb en la fre gts :
Wa gnb beaute cst tout alee: cljar eft tout gaftee :
Woult eft eftrolt ma mefon: en moj) na si berfte non :
0t si oie me belffei. 3fe ne qutbe pas qe bous bclffei :
Qe le euffe onqes ffomc eft. §>f su te oie be tant cljangce :
pur bleu prte? au celeftlen Hoj) : qe mercj) alt be larme be mop :
^ouj ceulr qe pur mop prleront: ou a bleu macoiberont :
X)tett les mette en son parap: ou nul ne poet cftre cbelttfs :
Over the tomb is a wooden canopy, carved and painted, on the underside of
which is painted a representation of God the Father sustaining before him the Son
on the Cross ; at the angles are the symbols of the four Evangelists. The heads
of the two principal personages have been effaced.
The military accoutrements of the Black Prince which are suspended by an iron
rod above the tomb, are extremely curious ; they are, perhaps, the most ancient re¬
mains of the kind existing, and, as might be expected, convey information on points
which, but for such evidence, can be gained but by inference. The shield fastened to
the column at the head of the tomb, is of wood, entirely covered with leather, wrought
in such a manner, that the fleurs de lis and lions stand forth with a boldness of relief
and finish, that when we consider the material employed, is truly wonderful; at the
same time possessing even to this day a nature so firm and tough, that it must have
been an excellent substitute for metal. This is, beyond doubt, the celebrated
Cuirbouilli* so often spoken of by the writers of the time. The surcoat, till closely
examined, gives but little idea of its original splendour, as the whole is now in
colour a dusky brown ; it has short sleeves, and is made to lace up the centre of
the back ; its outward surface is velvet, once quarterly az and gules, upon which is
richly embroidered with silk and gold, the lions and fleurs de lis ; the whole of the
surcoat is quilted, or gambased with cotton, to the thickness of three quarters of an
* His Jambeux were of curebuly,
His sword shethe of Ivory. — The Rhime of Sir Thopas. — Chancer.
When the body of Henry V. was brought from Rouen by Calais to England, a representation of the
deceased king, made of Cuir Bouilli, painted and gilt, was placed on the top of the cot&n.—Monstrelet.
inch, in narrow longitudinal portions, and lined with linen. It is remarkable,
that there is no file either on this surcoat or the shield. The helmet is of iron,
and has been lined within with leather; besides the sights for the eyes, it has on the
right side in front, a number of holes drilled in the form of a coronet, for the pur¬
pose of giving air to the wearer. The chapeau and leopard upon it, appear to be
formed with cloth, covered with a white composition. The leopard is gilt, and the
cap painted red; the facing white, with ermine spots, the inside lined with velvet.
The gauntlets are brass, and remarkable for their similarity to those represented on
the hands of the effigy, with this exception, that they have in addition, leopards,
standing erect on the knuckles ; the leather which appears on the inner side is orna¬
mentally worked up the sides of the fingers with silk. The sword is said to have
been taken away by Oliver Cromwell. The sheath which contained it yet remains,
it appears to be leather, has been painted red, and ornamented on the outer side with
gilt studs. There is yet a portion of the belt with the buckler attached ; this belt is
not of leather, but of cloth; the eighth of an inch thick, such as has been before
noticed as used in fastening the spurs on the tomb of William de Valence.
Details — Plate 1, Fig. 1. Portion of the coronet, with the mode of fastening the
camail to the bacinet, enlarged: — 2, 3, and 4, parts of the sword and enamelled
girdle. Plate 2, Fig. 1 and 2, the gauntlets which hang above the tomb, and those
on the hands of the effigy, enlarged. 3. The spur and enamelled strap. 4. The
mode in which the straps are attached to the spur on the inner side ol the right foot.
5. Part of the coutes, or elbow-piece.
loan IStirtMGcfjs, iLatiy jBoljun.
J oan Burwaschs, or de Burgbersh, waa the daughter of Bartholomew de Burghersh, and
wife of John de Mohun, Lord of Dunster, in Somersetshire, who had during his nonage
been in the wardship of her father. She founded a chantry in 1395, by indenture be¬
tween herself and the Prior and Monks of Christchurch, Canterbury. In consideration of
the payment of 350 marks, and the gift of certain appendages necessary for her chantry,
and of the manor of Selgrave being amortized to them by royal licence, they covenanted
that when she died her body should be laid in the tomb which she had already, at her own
cost, erected in the Lady Chapel of the undercroft of Canterbury cathedral, and that her
remains should never be removed from the monument, which was to be honourably kept
up. Hasted says, that the Dean and Chapter possess the manor, but that the tomb was
in his day sadly neglected. The effigy of Lady Mohun lies on an altar-tomb under a
gothic canopy, adorned with pinnacles and arches terminating in corbelled points. The
inscription on the verge of the tomb is here copied from Dart :
" Pour Dieu priez por I’ame Johane Burwaschs, qe feut Dame de Mohun.'
The attire of the Lady Mohun presents us with an example of the fret or reticu¬
lated coiffure adopted by court ladies of the fourteenth century ; and of the cote liardie,
which appears to have been a vestment fitting close to the body, leaving the neck bare,
and became much in vogue with the ladies towards the latter end of the fourteenth cen¬
tury. The wimpled attire of Aveline Countess of Lancaster will shew how chary they
were of their charms in the preceding age. The wimpled costume seems, indeed, to
have been borrowed from the females of the East. Mr. Charles Stothard relates a hu¬
morous anecdote of a damsel who wore the. cote hardie in one of his original letters
inserted in the Memoir of his Life.*
Details. Plate I. Jewelled lace on the hips of the cote hardie. Plate II. 1 . Top of the coiffure. 2. Por¬
tion of the circlet enlarged. 3. Reticulation of the coiffure. 4. Pattern on the cote hardie.
* Memoirs including Original Letters, &c. of C. A. Stothard, F. S. A. by Mrs. Charles Stothard. London.
18*23, p. 331.
Ixalpl) jSrtnll, (Carl of Wtstmotlanb, ant) Ijto ®LUbfS.
Ralph Nevill was born in 1365, and was the son of the warlike John Lord Nevill,
of that “ noble, ancient, and spreading family,” as it is termed by Dugdale, who derived
their descent from Gilbert de Nevill, a Norman who came into England with W illiam
the Conqueror. Isabella de Nevill, the descendant of Gilbert in the fourth degree,
carried his estate in marriage to Robert Fitz-Maldred, Lord of Ruby, in the county of
Durham. Their son Geoffrey, in consideration of his mother’s great inheritance,
assumed the surname of Nevill, and became the founder of the branch of Nevill of
Raby, afterwards Earls of Westmorland. Ralph Nevill, the subject of the effigy, was
the son and heir of John Lord Nevill, by his wife Maud, daughter of Lord Percy. John
de Neville married a second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Latimer, of Danby, by
whom he had John, afterwards Lord Latimer, who dying without issue the lands of
Latimer devolved to Ralph Nevill.
In 1397 Ralph de Nevill was created by King Richard the Second Earl of West¬
morland. On the landing of Henry Duke of Lancaster and Earl of Derby, afterwards
Henry the Fourth, at Ravenspur, the Earl of Westmorland joined him, with other
noblemen, and on the deposition of Richard the Second, and Henry’s elevation to the
throne, the latter gave him the honour of Richmond for his life, and constituted him Earl
Marshal of England. In virtue of this office, he claimed to hear the Lancaster sword
(with which the King had been girt as Duke of Lancaster on his entering the district of
Holdcrness) on the King’s left side at his coronation. The service was counterclaimed
by the Earl of Northumberland, in right of the Isle of Man, but it was adjudged to the
Earl of Westmorland.
On the rebellion of the Pcrcys, which was suppressed by the victory of Shrewsbury
field, he marched with Sir Robert Waterton against the great power with which the Earl
of Northumberland was advancing to aid his son, Henry Hotspur. He kept Northum¬
berland in check, who retired to his castle at Warkworth, where he soon learned the
signal defeat which his party had encountered, that
- " Rebellion had bad luck.
And that young Harry Percy's spur was cold."
On the insurrection which followed the same year, headed by the venerable Scroop
Archbishop of York, and Thomas Mowbray, in company with prince John of
Lancaster, the King’s third son, he made head against the rebels, and coming up with
them in Gualtree forest, had recourse to a stratagem for their ruin, in which he appears
to have sacrificed military honour to state policy.
lie entered into a conference with the Archbishop and Northumberland, and gave them
to understand, that, if they dismissed their warlike and treasonable array, the grievances
ot which they complained should be redressed. In consequence of this understanding
the rebel army dispersed,
“ Like youthful steers unyok'd they take their courses.
East, west, north, south ; or like a school broke up,
Each hurries towards his home and sporting place."
Westmorland then arrested the Archbishop, Mowbray, and their associates for treason ;
they were taken to Pontefract, where the King was, and soon after suffered execution.
The historical passages to which we have alluded have been dramatized by Shakspearc
with a close adherence to the Chronicles, and with a spirit which has embodied the
mental character and motives of the principal actors. Among them the Earl of West¬
morland is, of course, very conspicuous.
He accompanied Henry the Fifth into France, and was present at the battle of
Agincourt.
The Earl of Westmorland lived until the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was buried at
Staindrop, where he had founded and amply endowed a collegiate church. In the
chancel of this edifice was erected an altar-tomb, bearing his effigy and those of his two
wives, but which has since been removed, with reckless ignorance and barbarous feeling,
to an obscure corner in the south-west quarter. His first wife, whose figure reposes on
the left hand of that of the Earl himself, was Margaret, eldest daughter of Hugh Earl of
Stafford, by Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. Joan de
Beaufort, his second wife, was the only daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
by his concubine Catherine Swinford, whom he afterwards espoused. Joan was the
widow of Robert Ferrers. She died A. D. 1340, and, although she is commemorated
by an effigy at Staindrop (the monument most probably being prepared during the life¬
time of herself and her husband), she was buried in Lincoln cathedral, near her mother,
under an altar-tomb, with the following epitaph :
Filia Lancastri® Ducis, inclita sponsa Johanna
Westnierland primi subjacet hie comitis,
Desine, scriba, suas virtutes promere, nulla
Vox valeat merits vix reboare sua.
Stirpe, decore, fide, fama, spe, prece, prole,
Actubus et vita polluit ymmo sua.
Nalio tota dolel pro morte, Deus tulit ipsani
In Bricii festo C. quater M. quater X.
The issue of this Earl was very numerous. By his wives he had two-and-twenty
children, nine by his first wife, and thirteen by his second.
His children by Margaret were John, who died during his father's life time, but whose
son Ralph became Earl of Westmorland ; Ralph married Mary, a daughter of Sir Robert
Ferrers, of Ousley in Warwickshire ; Maud, wife of Peter Lord Mauley ; Alice, whose
first husband was Sir Thomas Grey, her second Sir Gilbert Lancaster ; Philippa, married
to Thomas Lord Dacrcs, from whom came the Dacres of the North and South ; Mar-
garet to Lord Scroop of Bolton ; Ann, to Sir Gilbert de Umfraville, of Lincolnshire;
Margery, Abbess of Barking ; Elizabeth, a nun of St. Clare, at the Minories, London.
By Joan de Beaufort lie had Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, father of Richard
Earl of Warwick and Salisbury, the King-maker; William Lord Fauconberg, created
Earl of Kent by Edward IV.; George Lord Latimer; Edward Lord Abergavenny;
Robert Bishop of Durham; Cuthbert and Henry Nevill, died young; Thomas Nevill,
married the daughter and heir of Seymour; Catherine, wife of John Lord Mowbray,
second Duke of Norfolk, and afterwards of Sir John Widvile, son of Earl Rivers;
Eleanor, married first to Richard Lord Spencer, next Henry Percy, Earl of Northumber¬
land ; Ann, to Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, then to Sir Walter Blouut,
Lord Mountjoy ; Jane took the veil ; Cicely was wife of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of
York, the father of King Edwaid the Fourth.
The monument of the Earl of Westmorland and his wives is entirely of alabaster.
The sides of the altar-tomb are richly adorned with architectural decorations, corbels,
pinnacles, and niches, surmounted by elegant little minarets with pointed roofs. At the
feet of each of the figures are two chantry priests, with open missals, celebrating divine
offices; these are in a sadly mutilated state, the heads being broken off. Sec Plate I.
AH the figures have the collar of SS. Under the Earl’s head is a helmet bearing the
crest of the family, a bull’s bead, and on his surcoat is a saltire ; Gules, a saltire Argent,
being their coat. Two dogs, wearing collars studded with bells, are at the feet ot the
Countesses ; these animals, so frequently found with figures on tombs, especially those
representing females, are the appendages of high rank ; they were indeed the ladies’ pet
dogs. Thus Chaucer:
“ Of smale houndes hadde she, that she fedde
With rosted flesh and milk, and wastel brede ;
But sore wept she if one of hem were dead,
Or if men smote with a verde smert - "
Details. Plate II. Profile of the Earl. 1. Richly ornamented wreath on the basinet, with rim of the basinet,
the front of which is inscribed 1. 1> 2. Jewelled gauntlet. It will be observed, that the nails of the fingers
are represented on those of the gauntlet. 3. Specimen of the mails of the camail. The mailing of the cantail
was left blank in Mr. Stoibard's original drawing, which has therefore been followed, but there is no doubt but
he intended it should be filled up. See Plate I. Plate III. Profile of Margaret the Countess. Details. 1. Rich
circlet and jewelled network confining the hair. 2. Band crossing the breast, and fastening the mantle to the
shoulders. 3. Coiffure of Countess Joan. *1. Band or frontlet on her forehead.
CfftcjP tit WRingfieib Cfmvclj, Jtorfolft.
This effigy represents one of the Wingfields, Lords of Letheringham, in Suffolk, of whom
Wcever says, “ The town of Wingfield hath given name to a family in this tract that is
spread into a number of branches, and is besides for knighthood and ancient gentilitic
renowned, and thereof it was the principal seat.” He adds a mutilated inscription be¬
longing to this tomb :
UJic jacet ©Dminu.d IBinofielb be 3CetbctinsIjain .... cujusi anime.*
Details. Plate I. Figure as originally painted, on the surcoat the arms of Wingfield, Azure, a fess Gules
cotised Argent and Azure, charged with three pair of wings Azure.
3foijn or Jlontacutr.
Sir John de Montacute, or Montagu, (Mons acutus and Mont aigu are synonymous
appellatives,) was the son of William first Earl of Salisbury, to which title his elder
brother William succeeded. He served in the wars in France under Edward the Third,
and was at the battle of Crecy in 1346. In 1372 he is mentioned as in the King’s fleet
at sea in the retinue of his brother the Earl of Salisbury. He was present in the expe¬
dition into Scotland undertaken by Richard the Second, A. D. 1385. He was then a
Knight Banneret, and was retained to serve the King in person, attended by another
banneret, five knights, and their esquires, sixty men-at-arms, and sixty archers. As
Steward of the King’s Household, he was sent to conduct into England Ann of Bohemia,
with whom Richard the Second had contracted marriage. He married Margaret, daugh-
Fun, Monuments, edit. 1G31, p. 759.
ter and inheretrix of Thomas (lc Monthermer, in whose right he held divers lordships
and manors, and was summoned to Parliament as a Baron of the Realm from the 31st
of Edward III. to the 13th Richard II. 1389, in which year he died. His will was dated
the 20th March, 1388, and directed that he should he buried in the cathedral church
of Salisbury, between two pillars, or, in case he should die in London, in the cathedral
church of St. Paul, where he was baptized. He ordered that a black woollen cloth
should he laid over his body, covering it and the hearse on which it rested, the ground
underneath to be spread with cloth of russet and white, of which every poor man attend¬
ing his funeral should have enough to make himself a coat and a hood. That on the
day of his funeral the lights should consist of five tapers, each weighing twenty pounds,
four mortaries, each of ten pounds weight, and twenty-four torches, to be borne by as
many poor men in russet and white. That the emblazonments about his herse should
consist only of one banner of the arms of England, two of the arms of Montacute* and
two of Monthermer ; by the last the five tapers were to be placed.f That there should
be a plain tomb made for him, with the image of a knight thereon, bearing the arms of
Montagu, or Montacute, and having a helmet under his head. He was interred in the
Lady Chapel of Salisbury Cathedral, and his tomb still remaining shows that the direc¬
tions of his will were pretty closely followed. Under his head is his helmet, having a
grilfin for crest. His surcoat quarters, Argent, three lozenges in fess Gules, for Monta¬
cute ; Or, an eagle displayed Yert, for Monthermer.
Details. Plate I. 1 . Ornament on the girdle. 2. Figure as originally painted. Plate II. Profile. 1. Part
of the wing of the griffin, &c. 2. Luce of the camail, passing through loops on the basinet. 3. Gauntlet en¬
larged. 4. Hilt and part of the scabbard of the sword, round which is twisted the belt.
* The shield of Montacute may to this day be observed on a buttress of one of the buildings in the Court
of Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of Wight. The gateway, and many other parts of that fortress, are evidently of the
time of Richard the Second, and William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, in the 9th of that King's reign, had
a grant of the Isle of Wight, Carisbrook Castle, and the royalties on them dependent.
•)■ Of the disposition of these tapers and mortars, or mortuary lights, at funeral solemnities, an excellent
idea will be acquired from the print of the funeral of Abbot Islip, published by the Society of Antiquaries,
in their Vetusta Monumenta.
— —
Sms 'G'rnr ibbiiak, Died 1391.
!''rom his Monument ini the Abbey Church of Tewkesbury
J.dntrn nj Ihf ,trt tJirfeij (
i&ir (Sup 33rpan.
During the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. no one appears to have been
more actively or variously engaged than Sir Guy Bryan. He first presents himself
to notice, 23rd Edward III. 1349, at the Battle of Calais, in which he bore the king's
standard, when for his gallant carriage with that trust he had granted him two
hundred marks per annum, for life, and, some time after, farther rewards. In 1354,
he was one of the Embassadors sent with Henry, duke of Lancaster, to Rome. The
year following in an expedition with the king against the French, he was made a
Banneret. In 1359 he was again active in the French wars, and, two years after,
revisited Rome on important business. In 1369 and 1370 he was Admiral of the
king’s fleet against France. Forty-fifth of Edward III. 1371, he was employed in
the Scotish wars, and about this time received, as a reward for his important services,
the Order of the Garter.
In the 1st and 2nd years of the reign of Richard II. Sir Guy Bryan served both
by sea and land against France, and accompanied Edmund Mortimer, Earl of
March, in his expedition to Ireland. lie had summons to Parliament from 24th of
Edward III. till 13th of Richard II. and departed this life on Wednesday, next
after the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, 14th Richard II. 1390.
Although this subject suffers considerably in its appearance, from the mutilations
it has undergone, yet, from the richness and peculiarities of the armour, it is a
valuable specimen. It is executed in stone, and has been painted, gilt, and silvered,
though there is but little of this now remaining. Sir Guy Bryan appears to have
been represented in the act of drawing his sword, an action not common on monu¬
ments at so late a period : on his head is the basinet, the camail attached to it by a
red lace ; the surcoat is charged with the arms of Bryan, or, three piles meeting in
base azure, the field is diapered with a white raised composition ; the piles are
painted with ultramarine, and have been beautifully diapered with white, the only
remains of which are to be traced under the right arm. The arms are covered by
the mail sleeves of the haubergeon, the lower part only from the elbow defended
with plate: on the upper, upon the mail, are singular appearances — a number of
iron pegs placed in regular order, enclosing a space, in form and extent the same on
both arms ; for what purpose they were placed there, it is not easy to conjecture.
The sword and dagger are broken away, as are also the gauntlets. The mail
chausses covering the legs seldom appear after plate-armour had been so long intro¬
duced, and they have here singular additions, being strengthened with narrow plates
above and below the genouillieres, each plate having, distributed equidistant along its
sides, six pegs of wood, the. purpose of these, or why they were of an extraneous
substance, is as unaccountable as what we find on the arms. The whole of the
armour, plate and mail, has been once covered with silver leaf. The mailles of the
camail, haubergeon, and chausses, are of different sizes, and formed with a white
impressed composition, as on the surcoat. The crest upon the helmet under
the head is too much mutilated to determine what it is, but most resembles a griffin’s
head. We should have expected a bugle-horn for the crest. Sir William Bryan,
son of Sir Guy, bearing this on his brass in Seale Church, Kent. The architectural
part of the monument is extremely light and elegant, and it has on that account
severely suffered; for many of the shafts, which supported this delicate fabric, are lost,
and a great number of those that remain are out of their perpend iculars in all
directions. As far as there were authorities remaining, a restoration has been made in
the etching, v\ liicli represents the monument nearly in its original state. The arms on
the base are Bryan in the centre, and Bryan impaling Montacute, on each side. The
wife of Sir Guy Bryan, being Elizabeth, daughter of William de Montacute, Earl of
Salisbury.
Details. — Plate 2. Fig. I, 2, 3, mailles of the camail, haubergeon, aud chausses, the
same size as the originals. 4. Raised diapering on the surcoat. 5. Part of the
girdle.
§Hr Caltjclcy.
Sir Hugh Calveley, or Calverley, of Lea, in Cheshire, was a most eminent soldier in
the reign of Edward the Third, and his successor Richard the Second. In 1350 we
find him one of the combatants in the celebrated pitched trial of arms, or combdt-u-
Voutrance, fought between thirty men-at-arms on the English side, and thirty on that of
the Bretons, called, in allusion to the number of the champions on either party, the
Battle of Trente. Sir Richard Brembre commanded the English band, and Marshal
Bcaumanoir the French. Among the companions of the valiant Calveley (twenty of whom
were English, the rest foreigners) were. Sir Robert Knolles, also a most distinguished
knight, Croquart the Freebooter, the gigantic HulbittSe, and Thomelin de Billefort, so
called from his wielding an enormous weapon of the axe kind. Sir Richard Brembre was
slain fighting hand-in-hand with the famous Bertram du Guesclin ; Calveley, Knolles, and
Croquart, the poor remains of the English party, were taken prisoners to the Castle
of Jossclin.*
In 1364 Calveley was in the battle of Auray, in Britanny, fought on a plain between that
town and Vannes, which decided the adverse claims of John de Montfort and Charles de
Blois to the Duchy of Bretagne, by the defeat and death of the latter. John Lord Chandos,
who commanded the English force which supported the cause of De Montfort, assigned
to Calveley the command of the reserve. Calveley’s brave spirit had no relish for this
post, and he exclaimed, “For God’s sake, my Lord, give this charge to some other, for
I desire but to fight among the foremost!” Chandos, however, explained that the
success of the day depended on the reserve; and Calveley, by his firm deportment in
covering and rallying the troops, when pressed by their enemy, mainly contributed to
the victory.
When the Black Prince marched into Spain to support Pedro the Cruel against his
bastard brother, Henry of Transtamare, Sir Hugh Calveley was with his army. He
pushed forward in advance of the Prince’s force, and narrowly escaped being captured by
the enemy ; for, having lodged for the night about a league from the English army,
his attendants at sunrise were bringing him his armour, when they were suddenly
* Mis. Charles Stothard (now Mrs. Bray), in her Tour through Normandy and Britanny, so replete with
illustrations of English History, as connected with our wars in France, describes the very spot on which this
battle occurred, a desert heath between Josselin and Ploermel, in sight of both towns. A broken cross still
marks the identical place, bearing the inscription, "A la memoire perpetuelle de la Bataille de Trente, que
Msr le Mareehal de Beaumanoir a gaignde dans ce lieu Tan 1350." See “Letters written during a Tour
through Normandy, Britanny, and other Parts of France, in ISIS, including local and historical Descriptions,
&c. with numerous Engravings after Drawings by Charles Stothard, F.S.A. Longman and Co. 1820. p.216.
75
attacked by a great body of Spaniards under tlie Condc dc Sancelloni, the brother of
Henry. Calveley escaped with difficulty to the vanguard of the army, commanded by
the young Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt. This occurrence took place two days
before the celebrated battle, fought between Navarete and Najara, on the banks of the
Ebro, in which the Black Prince gained a complete victory.*
In 1377 we find Sir Hugh Captain of Calais, in which year the poet Chaucer and
others were sent into France to treat of peace, but were unsuccessful. Some English¬
men, thinking there would be truce between the countries, ventured to pass the sea
between Calais and Dover, but were intercepted by the galleys of the French, and slain,
to the number of fifty, in sight of the garrison of Calais ; at which deed Sir Hugh
Calveley was highly indignant, and took an early opportunity to requite it, for lie sallied
out from Calais, assaulted the town and harbour of Boulogne, burnt six and twenty
ships, besides smaller vessels, in the port, and great part of the lower town, and returned
laden with spoil to his fortress.
He recovered about the same time the Castle of St. Marc, of which the French had
got possession by the treachery of certain Picards belonging to the garrison.
In 1378 Pope Urban VI. proclaimed his crusade against Pope Clement VII. and his
adherents ; a dispute which sadly weakens the pretensions of the infallible successors
of St. Peter. “As men-at-arms,” says the honest Canon of Chimay, Froissart, “ cannot
live on pardons, and pay not much attention to them save at the point of death,” he
ordered a full tenth to be levied upon the goods of the church, for this military mode of
proving himself orthodox, and appointed Henry Spencer, Bishop of Norwich, com¬
mander of the expedition.
Sir Hugh Calveley was one of those knights who entered into the pay of the church,
and whose opinion as a veteran warrior, was constantly consulted, although not properly
regarded, in the expedition. Against his advice the crusaders for Urban entered the
territory of the Earl of Flanders ; and, although at first they carried all before them, they
were ultimately obliged to retire with precipitation, the King of France taking part with
the Earl.
Froissart gives a lively description of this expedition, and of the part taken in it by
Sir Hugh Calveley. The historian brings before our view the banners, pennons, and
helmets of the hosts glittering in the sun ; shows us Calveley on the retreat of the
English, leaning on the battlements of the town of Bergues, and calculating the enemies’
force by the number of their men-at-arms. “ If they be but three thousand men-at-arms
they are ten thousand,” says Sir Hugh, alluding to the number of attendants on each
lance. lie found his estimate greatly exceeded when sixteen thousand lances appeared.
“ Let us mount our horses, and save ourselves,” then exclaimed the experienced soldier.
“ I know no longer the state of France ; I have never seen such numbers collected toge¬
ther by three-fourths as I now see.” lie directed a silent and prudent retreat in the
direction of Bourbourg with the spoils they had gained. He halted in the plain to wait
* In the neighbourhood of Vittoria, the place where we have in our own days seen the Biitish arms again
victorious, under Wellington.
for his rear and baggage. Unused to retreat before the foe, this gallant soldier was over¬
whelmed with melancholy, and said to Sir Thomas Trivet and others who had come to
meet him, “ By my faith, gentlemen, we have this time made a most shameful expedi¬
tion ; never was so pitiful or wretched a one made from England. You would have
your wills, and placed your confidence in this Bishop of Norwich, who wanted to fly
before he had wings — now see the honourable end you have brought it to. There is
Bourbourg ; if you chose, retire thither ; for my part I shall march to Gravclines and
Calais, because I find we are not of sufficient strength to cope with the King of France.”
Calveley returned to his garrison, the Bishop of Norwich and his adherents to Bour¬
bourg ; which they shortly after surrendered by capitulation, being allowed to retire to
their own country, where they were received with disgrace.* Calveley alone escaped uu-
blamed by the general voice, as his experienced counsel had been disregarded.
In 1379 John de Montfort, Duke of Britanny, returned home under convoy of Sir Hugh
Calveley and Sir Thomas Percy. While landing at a small port not far from St. Malo’s,
the ships which carried the Duke’s household furniture and armour were assailed by the
enemy’s gallies. Sir Hugh Calveley obliged the master of the vessel in which he was, to
put back, much against his will ; and the archers, under the direction of Sir Hugh,
hailed such a storm of arrows on the French that they were glad to retreat.
The above are some few passages of the military career of this renowned English
knight. Fie founded in 1386, the tenth year of the reign of Richard II. a college at
Rome, and at Bunbury in Cheshire. A story is extant, upon no certain foundation, that
he married a Queen of Arragon. He might indeed while in Spain with the Black
Prince have formed an alliance with some noble lady of the Spanish court. He reposes
in an altar-tomb in Bunbury church, Cheshire, which bears his effigy as represented, and
is surrounded by Gothic niches, intermixed with escutcheons.
Details. Plate I. The effigy as originally painted. On the surcoat — the coat of Calveley, Argent, a fess Gules,
between three calves Sable. Crest, a calf s head Sable. On the basinet is a rich circlet or wreath. The feet
rest on a golden lion. Plate II. Profile. 1. Portion of the wreath on the basinet enlarged ; also ornament of
the rim of the basinet, with lace of the camail. 2. Girdle, chain suspending the sword, scabbard of the sword.
3. Mails of the hauberk and camail. 4. Part of thegreave, solerettc, spur, and ornamented strap.
a 33a0Qct anb 2.atj}> at atljcrington.
This ancient family, of which two branches were settled in the county of Devon, pos¬
sessed the manor of Umberleigh, in the parish of Atherington, where they had a mansion
That renowned monarch of the Saxon dynasty, Athelstan, is said to have had a palace at
* Johnes's translation of Sir John Froissart's Chronicle, Svo. edit. vol.C. pp. 308 — 332.
the same place, and to have endowed the churches of Atherington and Bickington,
adjoining parishes, with land and other privileges *
Polwhele says that these are the effigies of “ Sir Arthur Basset and Elinora his wife.”
It appears from Mr. Stothard’s journal of his journey into Devon, in May 1821, in
search of subjects for his work, that this was the last monument he ever drew, but four
days before the fatal accident, which terminated his mortal career. He speaks of the
effigy of a knight, in the style of that of William Longcspee, as being brought from the
mins of Umberleigh, in the neighbourhood, and placed in Atherington church. lie
continues : “ Besides this figure, there is a tomb on the north side of the church for a
Knight and Lady temp. Richard II. The arms on his surcoat, a saltire vaire. By a
repetition of the last in another part of the church, I could ascertain that the field was
Gules. Prince describes the coat of Basset as barrv wavy of six Or and Gules. Crest, an
unicorn’s head, on the neck two bars indented Gules. The figure of the knight presents
the novel appendage of a mantelet, or covering for the camail, adorned with a scallopped
border, similarly to the surcoat. On his basiuet is a jewelled circlet, or wreath, orna¬
mented with roses. The coiffure of the female is a fret of the square form, the frontlet
of which bears a row of CD’s, probably as the iuitial letter of the blessed Virgin’s name.
Mr. Stothard’s original drawing has been very faithfully followed in the etching; but no
needle but his own could give an idea of its pure taste and elegant precision.
Details. Side view of part of the head, the fret and coif.
(Effigy in ®tUousIjhj) Cljurri).
This is supposed to be one of the Lords of Willoughby, in Nottinghamshire. Perhaps
Sir Richard tie V illoughby, who was Chief Justice of the King's Bench 1 1th Edward Ill.f
Chaucer says of his Serjeant-at-law,
and that he was
“Justice he was full oftin in Assise,
By patent, and by pleine connnissione
“ Girt with a eeint of silk with barris smale.”
The tunic of the figure is confined by a richly-embossed girdle.
Details. Ornament of the girdle.
* Risdon gives the laconic form of the grant, which should pill the scribes of modern instruments to the
blush , “ Ich, Athelstan, King Grome of this home, geve and graunt to the Preste of this Chirch, one yoke of
land freely to hold, wood in my holt house to build, bytt (i. c. biting) grass for all his beasts, fuel for his
hearth, pannage for his sow and pigs, world without end. Amen."
f MS. Note by Mr. C. Stothard.
tljc dfourtf), anti Ijts Queen Joan of JlaOane.
These effigies arc both oil one altar-tomb in the cathedral at Canterbury. Henry the
Fourth, sumamed of Bolingbroke, from the castle in Lincolnshire where he was horn,
about the year 1366, was the son of John of Gaunt by his first wife, Blanche, daughter
of Henry Duke of Lancaster. Thus in blood he was truly royal ; for Edward the Third
was his paternal grandfather, and he descended directly, by his mother’s side, from
Edmund Crouchback, first Earl of Lancaster, the second son of Henry the Third. His
first wife, and the mother of all his issue, was Mary, second daughter and coheiress cf
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, in whose right he was created Duke
of Hereford by King Richard the Second, and bore also, after his father’s death, the title
of Duke of Lancaster, and Earl of Derby. Having taken occasion one day, in conversa¬
tion with Thomas Mowbray, first Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England, to ani.
inadvert somewhat freely on his cousin King Richard’s misgovernment, Norfolk
denounced him to the King as a traitor. Bolingbroke recriminated on him as a
malignant forger of seditious tales, and requested the King to allow him to clear him¬
self by the trial of battle, « by the stroke of a spere and the dent of a sword.”* They
both in the royal presence interchangeably threw down their gages, and the King
appointed a day at Coventry for the adjustment of this quarrel by legal duel. In a work
of this character, it may be peculiarly allowable to follow the old chronicles in the
description of so chivalrous a ceremony. On the appointed day the Dukes came to
Coventry, accompanied by the noblemen and gentlemen of their lineage, who encouraged
them to the fight. The Duke of Albemarle, or Aumarle, and the Duke of Surrey, the one
High Constable and the other High Marshal of England for the day, entered the lists
with a numerous body of attendants, each of whom was attired in silke cendal, having
a “tipped staff in his hand to keep the field in order. About the hour of prime (six
o’clock in the forenoon) Bolingbroke came to the lists armed at all points, mounted on
a white courser, barded with blue and green velvet, embroidered sumptuously with swans
and antelopes of goldsmiths’ work. The Constable and Marshal demanded of him at
the barriers who he was ? " I am,” replied the noble appellant, “ Henry of Lancaster,
Duke of Hereford, who am come hither to do my devoir against Thomas Mowbray,
Duke of Norfolk, as a traitor untrue to God, the King, his Realm, and me ! ” Then he
was immediately sworn upon the Gospels that his quarrel was true and just, and there¬
fore he desired to enter the lists. He then returned his sword to the scabbard, put back
his vizor, crossed his forehead, entered within the barriers, alighted from his horse, and
* Hall, reprint, p. 3.
t Edward Plantagcnet, son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, was created Duke of Albemarle, and
Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent, Duke of Surrey, by Richard the Second ; both were deprived of these dignities
by King Henry the Fourth.
79
silt down in a chair of green velvet, which was placed under a canopy, also of velvet, at
one end of the lists. Soon after, King Richard entered the field, in great state, accom¬
panied by the Peers of the Realm, and the Earl of St. Paul, who had journeyed post from
France expressly to see this challenge. The King had above ten thousand men in har¬
ness with him as a guard. He ascended a stage, royally decorated, and seated himself. A
herald forbade, in the Constable’s and Marshal’s names, all persons, on pain of death,
from touching the lists, except the officers lor marshalling the field. Another herald
then proclaimed aloud these words : “Behold, Henry of Lancaster, Duke ol Hereford,
Appellant, is entered the Lists Royal to do his devoir against Thomas Mowbray, Duke
of Norfolk, Defendant, on pain of being proved false and recreant. During this time
the Duke of Norfolk, completely armed, was wheeling about before the entrance to the
lists on his destrier, barded with crimson velvet embroidered with silver lions (the bear¬
ing of his house) intermixed with mulberry-trees. When he had taken the oath that
his quarrel was just and true, he rode within the barrier into the field, exclaiming aloud,
“ God defend the right ! " and sat him down in a chatr of crimson velvet canopied with
white and red damask The Marshal then measured the spears, to see they were ot
equal length. He himself delivered one to the Appellant, and sent the other to the
Defendant by a knight. At the King's command, the seats of the champions were now
removed, they mounted their coursers, closed the beavers of their helms, threw their
lances into rest, the trumpets sounded, and the fiery steed ot Bolingbroke rushed
forward to the course. The Duke of Norfolk’s horse was not yet at his full pace, when
the King cast down his warder. The heralds called “ Ho! ho ! the signal for arresting
the combat. The King’s Secretary, Sir John Borcy, then read from a roll the decision
of the King and Council, publicly declaring that Henry of Lancaster, Duke of Hereford,
Appellant, and Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, Defendant, had entered the Royal
Lists to “darrain” battle like two valiant knights, but that, because the point in dispute
between them was great and weighty, and as Henry Duke of Hereford had displeased
the King, he was, within fifteen days, to depart the Realm, not to return for ten years,
on pain of death. That Thomas Mowbray, having sown sedition of which he could
make no proof, was also to avoid the Realm, never to approach it or its confines again,
on pain of death* A summary sentence, more intended to affect the revenues of these
noblemen than to answer the ends of justice, and of which Bolingbroke gave Richard in
a short time ample reason to repent. Bolingbroke retired to France; and Richard, on
the death of his father, John of Gaunt, seized his estates into his own hands.
In 1399 the banished Bolingbroke returned to his native shores, and landed at Ravens-
* Willi what a faithful adherence to Hall's Narrative, and with what spirit has Shakspeare dramatised this
scene ! Richard thus pronounces sentence on Norfolk in the play.
“ Norfolk, for thee remains a heavier doom,
Which I with some unwillingness pronounce.
The fly-slow hoursshall not determinate
The hateless limit of thy dear exile ;
The hopeless word of Never to return,
Breathe I against thee, upon pain of life!"
Richard II. net i. scene 3.
SO
purg on the const of Yorkshire. Richard was deposed, and he was elevated to the
throne m h,s place, notwithstanding the superior claim, of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of
Marche. Henry by no means, however, succeeded to an undisturbed sway. While Richard
was yet alive and in confinement at Pontefract Castle, a mock Richard was found to
personate him by the Earls of Huntingdon, Kent, Salisbury, and Gloucester. This con¬
spiracy defeated, the unfortunate royal captive was privately put to death as a matter of
state policy. The rebellion of the Percy, which followed in 1403 was put an end to by
the victory of Shrewsbury, in which fell the gallant Henry Percy, « the Hotspur of the
orth. His father, the Earl of Northumberland, in 1408, made a second attempt
at revolt, which cost him his life.
Henry enjoyed the crown, that
“ polished perturbation ! golden care !"
the object of his chief ambition, but fourteen years. While the more tranquil state of
his afiairs was giving him leisure to prepare for an expedition to the Holy Land, to reco¬
ver, like the old Crusaders, the place of Christ's passion from the infidels, he was struck
with an apoplexy, under which lie sunk on the 23d March 1413, in the 46th year of
his age.
A marked characteristic of his ruling passion appeared in his desiring the crown so
indirectly obtained, to be placed on a pillow at his bed's head during his last illness. He
clung to the splendid bauble with the fondness of a child for a favourite toy. The motto
of his device, “ Soverayne, seems to have been imagined under the same influence of
mind. His body was conveyed to Peversham by water, and thence by hind to the cathe¬
dral of Canterbury, where it was interred on the Trinity Sunday following his death,
with much state, his son Henry the Fifth and many nobles attending. There is an
improbable talc on record that they followed but an empty coffin, which the opening of
the tomb could only entirely refute.*
Henry the Fourth was twice married, first to Mary de Boliun, younger daughter
and coheiress of Humphrey Earl of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, High Con¬
stable of England, by whom he had issue Henry Prince of Wales, Thomas Duke of Cla¬
rence, John Duke of Bedford (Regent of France temp. Henry VI.), Humphrey Duke of
* Testimony of Clement Maydestone, that the body of Henry IV. was thrown into the Thames, and not
buried at Canterbury. From a Roll in the Library of Corpus Christi College, M. XIV. 98.
“ About thirty days after the death of Henry IV. there came a certain man of his household to the House of
the Holy Trinity at Hounslow for refreshment. And while they were conversing at dinner about the righteous¬
ness of that King's manners, the said man answered to a certain squire Thomas Maydstone, sitting at the same
table, that God knew if he were a good man. But this most truly (said he) I do know, that when his body
was conveyed from Westminster towards Canterbury in a small boat to be buried, 1 was one of those three per¬
sons who threw it into the sea between Berkingham and Gravesend. And, he added with an oath, that so
great a tempest and sea burst upon us, that many noblemen following us in eight vessels, were so scattered
that they hardly escaped with life. But we who were with the body, driven to despair of our lives, with common
consent, threw it into the sea, and kept the matter very silent. But the chest, in which he lay, covered with a
golden pall, we carried with much ceremony to Canterbury and buried it. Therefore the monks of Canterbury
say, that the sepulchre (not the body) of Henry IV. is with us . Almighty God is witness and
judge, that I saw that man, and that I heard his asseveration to my father Thomas Maydestone, that all the
aforesaid things were true. — Clement Maydeston." From the Latin in Peck's Desiderata Curiosa, vol. I.
81
Gloucester, Blanche Duchess of Bavaria, and Philippa Queen of Denmark. Mary de Bohun
died in 1394, and was buried in Canterbury Cathedral. Nine years after he espoused Joan,
daughter of Charles the first King of Navarre, and widow of John de Montfort, Duke of
Bretagne. She died without children, at that ancient seat of the English Kings from
the Saxon times, Havering-at-the-Bower, in Essex, the 10th of July, 1397, and was
buried at Canterbury Cathedral, where a sumptuous tomb, with the effigies delineated in
this work, commemorates herself and her husband. The tomb is on the north side of
the Trinity chapel, in which stood the shrine of Thomas a Beckct, and opposite to the
monument of Edward the Black Prince. It is of alabaster, painted and parcel gilt, of
the richest workmanship, but has suffered much from barbarous mutilation. The figures
are crowned, robed, and bore in their hands, no doubt, the other ensigns of royalty,
which are now broken away. The Queen has round her neck a collar of SS ; an orna¬
ment which is often repeated on other parts of the tomb, as is the King’s motto “ Sove-
rayne wc may therefore strongly infer that the letters SS. are used as the initials of
that favourite “ impress.” The earliest instance of the collar of SS. is that, we believe,
now before us. The King’s word “Soverayne,” with an eagle surmounted by a crown,
and the Queen’s “a temperance,” with a small animal, said to be an ermine or a gennet,
similarly surmounted, adorn the cornice round the canopy of the tomb* which is
further decorated with several armorial coats of contemporary nobles.
Details. Plate I. 1 . Band, &c. attaching the mantle of the King to the shoulders. 2. Band, border, cordon,
&c. of the Queen's mantle. 3. Her collar of SS. 4. Jewelled studs in the front of her cote hardie.
Plate 2. Profile of the King. 1. The Crown of State enlarged. 2. Jewelled border of the cuff. 3. Ditto of
the mantle. 4. Ditto of the side apertures of the dalmatic. 5. One of the two clasps closing the above aperture.
Plate 3. Profile of the Queen. 1. Portion of the Crown enlarged, with fret for confining the hair. 2. Bor¬
der of the mantle.
* The ceiling of the canopy of the tomb is said to have undergone two paintings. The first painting con¬
sisted of eagles and greyhounds, surrounded by the garter, having the words, “ Soverayne, " A lemperance,
between in diagonal stripes; the last, of the eagles and gennets placed as stops between the above inscriptions.
Cijomas Carl of SfrunUtl anti Ijtss Countess Beatrice.
T homas Earl of Arundel was the son and heir of Richard Earl of Arundel, who suffered
death as a traitor by the severity of Richard the Second, in the 20th year of the reign of
that monarch. In the 1st of Henry IV. he was restored in blood, the attainder against
his father being reversed by the Parliament. He was made a Knight of the Bath at the
coronation of King Henry the Fourth.
In 1404, he espoused Beatrice, an illegitimate daughter of the King of Portugal.
The King and Queen were present at the wedding feast, which was kept at London.
In 1411 he was sent into France, accompanied by certain nobles, knights, and men-at-
arms, to aid the Duke of Burgundy against the Duke of Orleans, and performed good
service in the cause of the former.* He died on the 13th October, 1416, having directed
by his last will that his body should be buried in the choir of the collegiate church of
the Holy Trinity at Arundel, under a tomb to be there erected to his memory. On his
monument are the effigies delineated in the Plates. He directed 130/. to be expended
on his funeral, and in celebrating masses for the good of his soul. He gave other sums
to religious and pious uses, between which terms a distinction in the days of superstition
is obviously to be drawn.
Beatrice his wife survived, and in 1432 license was granted for her marriage with
John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, afterwards Duke of Exeter; but this alliance does
not appear to have taken place. She died at Bourdeaux in 1439.
The Earl wears the collar of SS. a decoration introduced by his sovereign Henry the
Fourth.-}'
Details. Plate I. Exhibits a splendid example of t he state costume of the Earl and his Countess, both
wearing coronets. The lady has a huge horned coiffure, twenty-two inches in width ; under this draped ap¬
pendage her hair is conlined by a rich jewelled fret. Plate II. The Earl's coronet enlarged.
* See Stows Annals, 4to. edit. p. 541.
t See our observations on the collar of SS. in the account of the efligy of Henry the Fourth, who seems to
have made this emblem of his sovereignty an honorary mark of distinction ; we find it employed as such by his
son Henry the Fifth at the battle of Agincourt. “ He exhorted such of his train as were not noble to demean
themselves well in the fight, he promised them letters of nobility, and to distinguish them he gave them leave
to wear his collar of SS." “ 11 leur donna congd de porter un Collier semd de lettres S deson ordre.” Chronique
des Ursins, as quoted by Favines in his “ Theater of Honour and Knighthood." Translation, edit. 1623, Book
5, p. 67.
83
iHtrljncl 6c la pole, Carl of Suffolk, an6 Ijts
Countess Catljmtu.
Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was the grandson of that eminent merchant of
Hull, Sir William de la Pole, who was advanced to a Knight's and Banneret’s degree for
his services * to Edward the Third in the way of financial supplies. Michael de la
Pole, his father, died at Paris in 1388, a fugitive from his country, having forfeited, hy
a decree of Parliament, his lands. About 1 31) 1 he married Catherine, daughter of Hugh
Earl of Stafford, obtained a small pension from the Crown to aid his impoverished con¬
dition, the consequence of his father’s impeachment, and had licence to travel abroad,
where he probably watched the political changes for an opportunity to return ; for in
the first year of Henry the Fourth we find him petitioning for restoration of the lord-
ships granted to his father as Earl of Suffolk. This petition, in consideration of the
good services rendered to Henry of Bolingbroke on his landing in Yorkshire, was
favourably received, and the demesne lands of his family, with the title of Earl of
Suffolk, restored to him and his heirs.
In 1415 he was engaged to serve Henry the Fifth in his expedition into France. He
was entrusted with the command of the rear-guard-}- of the English army, and was at
the siege of Harfleur, with which operation the King opened the campaign. The Earl
of Suffolk fell a victim at that place to the dysentery, which infected the English army.
Ilis son Michael, who was with him, succeeded to his honours, and within a month
after the death of his father was slain on the glorious field of Azincourt. The Earl of
Suffolk by his last Mill directed that his body should be buried near his father and
mother, at the church of the Carthusians in Hull, if he should die in the north of
England; if elsewhere, at Wingfield in the county of Suffolk, in the collegiate church of
that place,;}: on the north side of the altar of the blessed Virgin. To Catherine his wife
he gave a little book, with tablets of silver gilt, and the coronet which was the Earl of
Stafford her father’s. To his son a little primer, which belonged to John de la Pole, his
brother.
* This appears to be an exception to the custom of conferring the degree of Banneret only on the field of
battle, and for military services. See Dligdale's Baronage, vol. I. p. 181.
1 The patronage of the Chantry at Wingfield came to his father, the first Earl of Suffolk, by marriage with
Catherine, daughter of Sir John de Wingfield, who was his mother.
| Stow, 4to. edit, black letter, p. 556.
8-1
Hc bnrW * Wingfield, and the Countess his wife, who was one of his executors,
erected, m all probability, the monument there which commemorates him and herself.
The effigies of de la Pole and his Countess are eminently beautiful specimens of female
and military costume in the time of Henry the Fifth. The grand simplicity of the very
plain suit of plate-armour which he wears, personifies the idea which we entertain of the
appearance of the martial spectre so boldly imagined by Shakspeare for one of his finest
dramas.
Details. Plate I. Ornamented fret of the Duchess's coiffure.
gar Robert ©rtialjill anti Itatiy.
There is a monument in Hoveringham Church, Nottinghamshire, to Sir Robert
Goushill, or Grushill, and his Lady, Elizabeth, widow of Thomas Mowbray (that. Duke
of Norfolk who was banished by Richard the Second), daughter and heiress of Richard
Earl of Arundel.* We do not, however, think, in this single instance, that the drawing
lias been rightly appropriated on the face of the plate. The male figure evidently repre¬
sents a Knight of the Garter, and it does not appear that Sir Robert Grushill was of
that noble order. Unfortunately, Mr. Stotliard omitted to write at the back of his draw¬
ing the name of the monument from which it was taken. After his death, one of his
antiquarian friends informed his widow that it represented Sir Robert Grushill. The
erroneous information was adopted for lettering the etching ; and in supplying the
notices for the different Effigies we have in vain endeavoured to rectify the mistake.
We would not, however, by omitting the subject, deprive the collection laid before the
public, of so elegant a specimen of costume, recorded by Mr. C. Stotliard’s pencil, and
faithfully etched by Mr. C. J. Smith. The Lady wears a crescent-horned head-dress,
rich fret, and a coronet; the Knight, a costly wreath, in front of which is a spread-
eagle, and his feet seem to rest on a bird of the same kind. In front of the basinet are
the letters IHS. His head rests on his helmet, furnished with a mantelet and
panache. He has the collar of SS. round his neck. The gussets and brassarts of his
armour are elegantly fluted. Below the cuirass, or plastron, is a clearly defined example
of the piece of armour to which Mr. Stothard has alluded in one of his letters, under
the name of “pance,” “bark” or “ barde preu.” The tassets are, as usual, appended by
straps ; by which contrivance the free motion of the thigh was allowed. On the left
knee is the garter ; and over the greaves, below the knee, we think are indented lam¬
brequins of leather or cloth.
* See Thoroton's Nottinghamshire, by Throsby, vol. III. p. G2, where it is stated that, under Sir Robert
Grushill's head is a Moor's head crowned, which disagrees with the figure before us.
85
ifetr CtmnutTi hr Cljorpc ant> SLatip.
These effigies are in Ashwell Thorp church, Norfolk. We have in the ancestry of Sir
Edmund de Thorpe a striking instance of the mutability of surnames in some families
until the thirteenth century. William de Norwich lived about the time of the Con¬
quest, and possessed the manor of Thorpe. From him came Roger, whose son Robert
was distinguished by the surname of Fitz-Roger ; Fitz-Roger’s child Hugh, from some
local circumstance, took the surname of de Messingham ; and his child John assumed
the cognomen of Fitz-Robcrt, in allusion to his grandfather. In the time of Henry the
Third, we find the heir of John entitled Robert Fitz-John de Thorpe; and in Edmund,
his heir, the surname became fixed and inheritable. Sir Edmund, his son by his wife
Joan, daughter of Robert Baynard, is represented by the male effigy. Joan, widow of
Lord Scales, his second wife, is the subject of the female figure. In 1417 Sir Edmund
de Thorpe was associated with John Ncvill and John Kempe, LL.D. (afterwards the
Cardinal Archbishop, son of Sir Thomas Kempe, of Wye,) to compose all differences
between Henry the Fifth and the Duke of Burgundy. He is considered to be the per¬
son designated by the Chronicles as Lord Thorpe, who in 1418 was killed at the siege
of the Castle of Louviers, in Normandy. He was buried in the church of Ashwell
Thorp, in the new aile erected at his expense. The figures of Sir Edmund de Thorpe
and his Lady are of alabaster, and are described by Bloomfield in his time as lying under
a canopy of wood. The costume of the figures is elegantly and elaborately detailed.
The lady lies at the right side of her lord ; her hair is confined by a rich fret ; the cordon
of her mantle is attached by two clasps, apparently formed as eagles with expanded wings.
The same ornament appears near the gusset of the armour on the knight’s left shoulder.
The front of his basinet is engraved with elegant tracery of foliage; and lie wears a
splendid wreath, studded, we may suppose, with pearls, and enamelled with leaves of
laurel. The. surcoat bears, quarterly, the arms of Thorpe and Baynard ; the three
crescents Argent in the Azure field, in the dexter quarter, being for Thorpe. At the
lady’s feet are two little dogs with collars and bells ; at the knight’s a greyhound. The
joints of the brassarts, cuisses, genouillieres, and greaves of his armour, are ornamentally
engraven. Under his head is a beautiful specimen of the helmet of his time: it is
covered with a scallopped mantelet, or lambrequin, surmounted by a rich coronet, and
has a panache of peacock’s feathers.
Details. Plate II. Upper part of the lady's coiffure. Profile of her head. Portion of the fret. Profile of
the knight’s head and shoulders. The figure as originally painted and gilt. The helmet. Portion of the
basinet and wreath. Portion of the mailles enlarged. The collar of SS. enlarged.
8(i
MJtlltant of Colcfjcfltcr
Became a monk of Westminster in 1360. He was much engaged in the affairs of his
convent, and was employed from 1377 to 1379 in managing a law-suit instituted in the
Papal Court by the Abbey of Westminster, against the Dean and Canons of St. Stephen’s.
For his good sendee in this matter, he was allowed a chamber and garden to himself, a
yearly salary of six marks, a corrody, or monk’s allowance, over and above this provision ;
and he was to be treated in all respects as one of the senior monks. He was at Rome
again, on the same or some other business for his convent, in 1384. In 1391 he was
sent abroad on a mission for King Richard the Second, but on what occasion is not
known. In 1399 he was one of the Commissioners appointed to receive the resignation
of the Crown from King Richard the Second. Widmore, the historian of Westminster
Abbey,* discredits the statement that he was concerned in 1400 in a plot against the
life of King Henry the Fourth, as a forgery of a later day.
In 1408 he was at Pisa, in Italy, owing, it is supposed, to a schism then occurring in
the Papacy. On the 20th March, 1423, Henry the Fourth being taken ill while at his
devotions in the Abbey, was carried to a large apartment belonging to the Abbot’s
house, (then inhabited by William of Colchester,) the celebrated Jerusalem Chamber,
probably so called from some painting, which, according to the fashion of the time*
decorated its lamhruscated or wainscotted walls. The story related by the continuator
of the History of Croyland, that the King believed this circumstance to be an accom¬
plishment of a prophecy that he should die at Jerusalem, is become trite by the lines of
Shakspearc —
- “ Bear me to that chamber ; there I 'll lie ;
In that Jerusalem shall Harry die."
And there he actually breathed his last.
In 1414 Abbot Colchester was one of the King’s ambassadors to the Council of Con¬
stance. Towards the latter period of his life we may suppose him to be much engaged
in rebuilding the west part of the Abbey, towards which undertaking Henry the Fifth
gave yearly 1,000 marks. He died in October 1420, having held the office of Abbot
thirty-four years : a longer period than any of his predecessors. He was buried in the
chapel of St. John the Baptist, in his church; in the tomb on which his effigies are
sculptured, without other inscription than the letters W. C. on the pillow under his
head.
Details. Plate I. 1. Front of the Abbot’s mitre. (The Abbey of Westminster was privileged with the pon¬
tifical ornaments; in other words, a mitred abbey.) 2. Jewelled border of the cape of the chasuble.
Plate II. Profile. Border of the chasuble.
* Inquiry into the first Foundation of Westminster Abbey. London, 1743, p. 110.
87
folm Wantlrp.
Aj.i. that we can find relative to the person represented by this sepulchral brass, is little
more than may be learned from its inscription. He was of an ancient family, settled at
Amberley, in Sussex, died in 1424, and was buried in the village church. Two farms in
the parish of Amberley arc called Wantlcy’s at this day. In his dress we have an
example of the surcoat, assuming the form of the habiliment commonly known as a
tabard: the surcoat and tabard are, however, synonymous terms. Wantley’s tabard
bears. Vert, three lions’ heads langued Argent, represented in enamel on the brass.
The upper part of a shirt of mail appears about the neck, where uncovered by the tabard.
Under his feet, in the black letter, is this inscription :
£?ic jarct Oiol/csi ©antclc, qui abut jrjrij:0 Die ^lanuar’, anno ©’nt milfo £££CJ£'3133i3!0> cu'9
aiel p’picietur oeust.
DfjtUppa Diirljcss of J)orft
Was the daughter of John Lord Mohun, of Dunster, in the county of Somerset, who
died towards the latter end of the fourteenth century, leaving as his heirs three daugh¬
ters, Philippa, Elizabeth, the wife of William de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, (of whom
we have already treated,) and Maud, wife of John Lord Strange, of Knockyn, in the
county of Salop. Philippa, represented by this elhgy, married Edward Plantagenet, son
and heir of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, fifth son of Edward the Third, who
succeeded to his father’s honours, and was by Richard the Second created Earl of Rut¬
land, of Cork, Duke of Albemarle, or Aumarle, and Constable of England. By this
marriage there was no issue, and Edmund Duke of York was slain in the memorable
battle of Azincourt, A. D. 1415. Philippa was afterwards espoused to Sir Walter Fitz-
walter, Knight, whose arms are impaled with hers in the chapel of St. Nicholas, in the
Abbey Church of Westminster,* where she was buried, with this inscription on her
tomb.'}'
Philippa, filia ct cohasres Johannis D’ni Mohun de Dunster, uxor Edwardi Dueis Eboracensis, moritur anno
D'ni M.CCCC.XXXIII.
* Camden gives her another husband, Sir John Golofre, making him the second, and Edward Plantagenet
the last. Among the escutcheons on her tomb is certainiy the coat attributed to Golofre, impaling Mohun.
t Her last will was dated in the Isle of Wight, in the ad of Henry V. She had a grant of the Lordship of
Wight, which had been before granted to her husband the Duke of York.
f olm jTtt?=aian, ICovti JWaltxa'urrB anti Carl of arunM.
John Fitz-Alan was descended directly, in the third degree, from John the second
son of Richard Earl of Arundel, noticed at p. 83, who married Eleanor daughter of Lord
Maltravers, he was the eldest son of John Fitz-Alan, Lord Maltravers, by his wife Eleanor,
daughter of Sir John Berkeley, and was born in 1407. His father had previously suc¬
ceeded to the estates of his kinsman, Thomas Earl of Arundel, grandson of Richard
before mentioned, by the elder branch ; but it does not appear that he ever bore the
title of Earl of Arundel. In 1432 John Fitz-Alan preferred a petition to the Parlia¬
ment that he might be admitted to his due place in all public councils, inasmuch as he
was seised of the Castle and Honour of Arundel, to which the title of Earl had, by
peculiar custom, time out of mind, been annexed.
The right to the Honour of Arundel was counterclaimed by John Duke of Norfolk,
but it was adjudged to Fitz-Alan ; it appearing that Richard Earl of Arundel had by
legal process in the reign of Edward the Third entailed it on his male issue.
In 1434 he accompanied the expedition of the celebrated John Talbot, afterwards
Earl of Shrewsbury, into Normandy, where he distinguished himself by the capture of
many towns and fortresses. Charles, the French King, had caused the ancient moulder¬
ing castle of Gerbroi to be repaired and fortified, as it commanded the entrance from
Normandy into the territory of Beauvais. In the castle was placed a garrison of three
thousand men, under the command of the Chevalier Etienne dc Vignolles. The Earl of
Arundel, ignorant of the formidable state of defence in which the post was thus placed,
thought to carry it by a coup-de-main, and advanced with five hundred horse to the
neighbourhood of Gerbroi, encamping in a little meadow before the castle. His archers
on foot were yet some distance in the rear. The wily enemy were aware of this circum¬
stance, and made a sally, at first with fifty horsemen only, in order to induce the Earl to
believe their numbers were insignificant. To them the Earl opposed one hundred of
his cavalry, under Sir Ralph Standish, when suddenly the whole remaining force of the
enemy poured out from under cover of the fortifications to sustain their companions.
The English, true to their intrepid nature, nobly bore up against such overwhelming
odds. Standish was slain. Fitz-Alan hastened to the scene of action. Vignolles per¬
ceiving, from the valour of the little band of English, that the fight was still doubtful,
opened a fire on them from three culverins. These “ mortal engines,” which, as the
hero of Cervantes remarks, render the skill of personal arms of little avail, decided the
contest; such devilish instruments, he says, “put it in the power of a cowardly and
89
jl
base hand to take away the life of the bravest cavalier ; to which it is owing that, not
knowing how or from whence, in the midst of that resolution and bravery which ani¬
mates gallant spirits, comes a chance ball, shot off, perhaps, by one who fled and was
frightened at the very flash of the powder, and in an instant cuts short and puts an end
to the thoughts and life of him who deserved to have lived for many ages.”* Fitz-
Alan’s leg was broken by a shot, which struck him off his horse. He lay helpless on
the ground, an easy capture for the enemy. Two hundred of his men were killed ;
sixty were made prisoners with himself. lie was carried to Beauvais, where he died of
his wound, on the 12th May, 1434, and was buried in the monastery of the Grey Friars
at that place. By his last will, made some time previous to his death, he had directed
that he should be buried in the collegiate church of Arundel, founded by his ancestors.
With that intention the tomb there remaining was probably in his lifetime prepared.
The ethgy of this Earl of Arundel wears the collar of SS. or, as we may pretty con¬
fidently term it, Soverayne. The surcoat, or tabard, has short sleeves. The camail, it
will be observed, bas now disappeared as a defence for the neck, and is replaced by a
gorget of plate-armour.
Details. Plate I. Figure as originally painted. On the surcoat, Arundel quartering Maltravers.
Plate II. Hilt and end of the dagger-sheath.
* Don Quixote, vol. I. chap, xxxvii.
90
Ixuijavb Bcaucijamp, Cavl of fSffilartotrtt.
Richard was the son and heir of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, by his wife
Margaret, daughter of Lord Ferrars of Groby. He was born at the manor-house of
Salwarpe, in the county of Worcester, 28th January, 1381. Richard the Second, and
Richard Scroop, afterwards Archbishop of York, were his godfathers. On the corona¬
tion of Henry the Fourth, in 1399, he was made a Knight of the Bath. His father
dying in 1401, he succeeded to his patrimonial honours and possessions. In 1404 he
began to display the knightly character, with which, it will be seen, through life he was
so strongly embued, by proclaiming jousts to all comers.
In the following year, he distinguished himself in the battle fought at Usk with the
forces of Owen Glendower, in which the son of Glendowcr was taken prisoner, and the
Welch defeated with great loss. Three years after he had the King’s licence to leave
the kingdom, for the purpose of visiting the Holy Land. In his way he went to Paris,
where he was honourably entertained by the King of France. Thence he proceeded
into Lombardy, where a herald from one Sir Pandulph Malacet challenged him to joust
at Verona, in honour of the institution of the Order of the Garter. On the appointed
day he repaired to the lists, where the combat was to take place. The combatants were
to tilt with the lance, to fight with axes, and then with swords. Before, however, it
came to the trial of swords, poor Sir Pandulph (who had entered the field with affecta¬
tion of great state, having nine lances borne before him) had had enough of the contest,
being severely wounded in the shoulder; and would have been slain, but that the Judge
of the Field proclaimed “ Peace,” and put an end to the fight.
From Verona he repaired to Venice, where he was entertained by the Doge, and
from thence sailed for Palestine, and accomplished his visit to the Holy City, setting up
his arms within the church of the Temple. From the Infidels themselves his great
name, and the renown of his ancient house, procured him distinguished attention.
Before he returned home he visited Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Prussia, Westphalia,
and other countries, in search, like a knight-errant of romance, of chivalrous achieve¬
ments. He was, indeed, the actual personification of the knight drawn by a poet nearly
of his own time, Chaucer :
"That from the time that he first began
To riden out he loved chevalrie,
Trouth and honour, fredom and curtesie.
Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre.
And therto had he ridden, none so ferre,
As wel in Christendom and in Helhenesse,
And ever honoured for his worthinesse.
Aboven all nations in Pruce :
In Lettowe had he reysed,* and in Ruce,
- and in the Grete See,
At many a noble army had he be.
At mortal hattles had be ben lifteene;
And foughten for our faith at Tramisscne,
In listos thrice, and ay slain his foe."
On his return to his native country, he performed the office of Grand Seneschal, or
Hieh Steward, at the coronation of Henry the Fifth, and was engaged to serve that
King in peace and war, having the grant of a yearly pension.
In 1414 he was in an embassy from the English Court to the Council of Constance.
There he tilted before the Emperor Sigismund and his Empress. A certain German
nobleman challenged him to the outrance for his lady's sake. The German was slain in
the unequal trial. The Empress was so struck with Warwick’s prowess, that she took
the cognizance of his house, the bear and ragged staff, from the shoulder of one of his
retainers, and placed it on her own. Warwick, with refined gallantry, sent her the next
day the same device richly wrought in pearl. He was next appointed Captain of Calais,
made his entry into that fortress in solemn procession, and, true to his chivalric notions,
proclaimed a festival of arms. On the appointed day he repaired to the field in a sort of
assumed incognito, in imitation of the unknown knights of the old romances. Three
French knights in the same spirit accepted his challenge. The first day the Earl of
Warwick entered the lists in complete armour, his helmet surmounted by a panache of
ostrich feathers, his shield, and the bases of his horse, decorated with the coat of his
ancestor the Lord Toney. He was encountered by one of the French knights, who
called himself le Chevalier Rouge, whom at the third course he bore out of his saddle
and unhorsed. He then sent him a destrier, or warhorse, as a gift. The next day, with a
chaplet of cold upon his helm, wearing the arms of Hanslap, he was met by le Chevalier
Blanc, to whom lie gave proof of his prowess — smote off his vizor, pierced his armour,
and dismounted him. He sent him also a courser. The next day he appeared as Earl of
Warwick, quartering Beauchamp, Guy, Hanslap, and Toney, on his trappings. His
vizor open, the chaplet on his helm enriched with pearl and precious stones. His
opponent was Sir Collard Fynes. At every course he bore him at the point of the
lance from his seat. The French spectators thought there was some foul play, and
exclaimed that the Earl of Warwick was bound to the saddle. lie instantly corrected
their error by dismounting from his horse. The third time victor, he recompensed his
adversaries with noble gifts, feasted all the company, and returned to Calais.
In 1417 he was with Henry the Fifth in the division of the army under the Duke of
Clarence at the storming of the city of Caen, and was the first to enter the place and
plant the English banner on the battlements.
On the demise of Henry the Fifth he was appointed by will guardian of his son.
The Duke of Bedford, Regent of France, dying, he was next constituted Lieutenant
General of France and Normandy, and embarked with his wife and son to execute his
high office. While at sea they were overtaken by a violent tempest. Destruction
92
H loi aw i> B K .vi tii .\m !’ . Eabl or 'War’wick .
seemed inevitable. He caused himself, attired in the tabard of his arms, his wife and
son, to be lashed together to the mast of the vessel, in order that, if their bodies should
be found, they might be interred together, with that honour which belonged to their
noble house. The Earl of Warwick shortly after was taken ill, and died at Rouen.
His will is dated August 8th, 1435. By it he gives particular directions for the inter¬
ment of his body in the collegiate church at Warwick, near his father's tomb ; to which
church he gives an image of pure gold as a lieriot. Four images of gold, each of 201bs.
weight, of himself, holding an anchor in his hands, (allusive, perhaps, to his preservation
from shipwreck,) to be offered for him at St. Alban’s, Canterbury, Bridlington, and
Shrewsbury. The contract between the executors of the Earl, and John Essex, marbler,
William Austen, founder, and Thomas Stevyns, coppersmith, for the construction of his
tomb, is given at length by the elaborate antiquary Dugdale, who found it among the
muniments of the Corporation of Warwick. It is dated 13th June, 32 Henry XI.
(1453.) Among the items these may be particularized : “William Austen, citizen and
founder, of London, covenanted to cast and make an image of a man armed, of fine
latten, garnished with certain ornaments, viz. with sword and dagger, with a garter, with
a helm and crest under his head, and at his feet a bear muzzled and a griihn, perfectly
made of the finest latten, according to patterns.” He was to make also of the finest latten
(to be gilded) fourteen embossed images of lords and ladies, in divers vestures, called
weepers, to stand in housings (or niches) made about the tomb. A hearse was to he
made to stand on the tomb above the principal image. Also certain images of angels
and escutcheons of arms. Then follows the particulars of the marbler or mason’s work
on and about the tomb, and of the glazier for glazing the windows of the new chapel at
Warwick, where it was erected, with images and stories after drawings on paper, to be
executed in the best glass, not English, but brought from beyond sea, and of the richest
colours, “ blue, yellow, red, purpure, sanguine, and violet no more white, green, or
black glass was to be used than was absolutely necessary to express the figures in these
•' Storied windows, richly dight,
Shedding a dim religious light."
There arc other items of agreement for painting the walls with devices and “imagery,”
and painting and gilding images of certain Saints. The Beauchamp chapel and tomb
were commenced in 1442, and finished in 1465, at the expense of nearly two thousand
five hundred pounds. Of the beautiful figure of Beauchamp Mr. Stothard executed four
drawings, three of which he etched himself, with a spirit truly worthy of so fine a
subject. He ascertained that the ponderous figure of latten or bronze which lay upon
the altar-tomb was loose, and with considerable effort succeeded in turning it over, when
the armour at the back was found as carefully and accurately represented as in the. front,
showing all the parts of a suit, its straps and fastenings, with instructive minuteness.
This view of the figure about the shoulders is particularly fine, and must be of the
the highest value to the historical painter, for its boldness and truth.
Of the fourteen mourners about the tomb he executed also exquisite drawings in sepia,
which it is to be lamented he did not survive to transfer to the copper. These figures
93
stand under their housings, or canopies, five on each side of the tomb, and two at either
end. Between these arc smaller canopies, each of which is occupied bv an angel holding
a scroll, inscribed with these words :
“ Sit Sco laus ct Gloria, bcfuncris mis'crccotbia."
On the south side of the tomb are the following mourners (see the fifth Plate from
this tomb:)
1. Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, with a scroll. 2. Edmund Beaufort, Duke of
Somerset, husband to Eleanor, daughter of the Earl of Warwick, with a book. 3. Hum¬
phrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, married to Ann, daughter of Ralph Nevill, Earl
of Westmorland, wrapped in his mantle. 4. John Talbot, the great Earl of Shrewsbury,
who married Margaret, the Earl of Warwick's elder daughter, in his mantle, the hood
drawn over the head, in his hand a book. 5. Richard Nevill, the younger, Earl of
Salisbury, husband of Anne the Earl’s only daughter by his second marriage, with a
book. — At the east end of the tomb. G. George Nevill, Lord Latimer, with a rosary.
7. Elizabeth, his wife, third daughter of the Earl of Warwick by his first wife, with a book.
In the sixth plate we have the figures on the north side of the tomb, and at the west
end :
1. Alice, daughter of Thomas Montacutc, Earl of Salisbury, and wife of Richard
Nevill the elder, in her right Earl of Salisbury, with a rosary. 2. Margaret, the Earl
of Warwick’s eldest daughter by his first wife, and wife of John Talbot, Earl of Shrews¬
bury, holding in her hand a scroll. 3. Anne, wife of Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buck¬
ingham, daughter of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland, with a book. 4. Eleanor,
wife of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, Beauchamp’s second daughter by his
first marriage, with a rosary. 5. Ann, wife of Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, only
daughter of Beauchamp by his second wife, with a book. — At the west end or head of the
monument. G. Cicely, daughter of Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, wife of Henry
Beauchamp, with a roll. G. Henry Beauchamp, the Earl’s eldest son, afterwards Duke
of Warwick, with a book in a bag.
The epitaph on the verge of the tomb runs thus, bears and ragged staves being in¬
troduced between the words and sentences as points:
IPrictb Dcboutlr for rfjc cotnd, tobom fiob aoooillc, of onr of the moot toorobipful Rniebtco in bis narco of manfjooc
anti conning, Ricijarb ®caucl)amp, late ®arl of aHarrctoift, lam iDcopcnocr of tBcrgrbcnnr, anti of monp oibcr grrtc lorn,
obipo. taboo boar reotetfj pcrc unDcr tbio tumbe, in a ful feire bout of otonc, oct on tbc bare roocb, tijc tabic!) bioitcD toitfj
Iona me bn co in tbc €aotcl of Roan, tberinne bcccoocb, fill triotcnlp, tbc last bar of april, tbc ret of ourc Herb ®ob
a : rttjt. be being at that trmr lieutenant cental anti oobetnor of tbc Roialmc of JTtauncc, anti of tbc sOucfjjc
of /3otmanbic. br ouEcicnt autoritic of ourc oob'aianc lotb tbc Rina fijarrr tbc Cl J.; tbc tobicb bobr, tnitb arete bclibcrac on,
anb ful taorobipful contmitc, br occ anti br lonti, toao broabt to iCiatrctoilt tbc iiii of SDctobcr, tbc ret abobcoeiuc, anti toao
[cine, toitb ful oolenne crcquico, in a feir cheat mabc of atone, in tbio ebirebe, afore tbc tocot bore of tbio chapel, actorbina to
bio laotc toille anb tcatament, therm to rcatc til tbio cfjapcl br b*nt bebioeb in bio lief tacrc mabc. 911 tbc tobiebe ebapef,
founbeb on tbc roocb, anb all tbc membero tfjcroC, bio cjrecutoro bebe fullr mabc anb apparaillc, br tbc auctorite of bio ocibe
laot toille anb teotament. 9nb tberafter, br 'be oamc auctorite, tber bib tranolatc ful toorsbipfullr tbc ocibe bobr into tbc
bout abobcocibc. D;onurcb be Sob tbcrforc.
The Earl of Warwick was twice married : first, to Elizabeth, daughter and inheretrix
of Thomas Lord Berkeley; secondly, to Isabella, daughter and inheretrix of Thomas
Lord Spencer, Earl of Gloucester. By his first wife he had three daughters ; by his
second, his son and heir, Henry, above mentioned.
FIGURES ROUND THE TOMB OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP BARI. OF WARWICK
FIGURES ROUND THE TOMB OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP EARL OF WARWICK.
JS6
erscfc'VP. ■:
J27
J0I1>: TAI.BOT.tse Cheat iEabjl of Shm-wsb^bt »jf.d 3-1-u?.3 .
From Ids Effigy at 'V3iitrl«rch. Shropfliixe .
Sfoijn iLovtj Calbot, Carl of gilntloslmrj).
What English spirit, even in these latter days, but rouses at the name of Talbot!
“The cry of Talbot, serving for a sword !
- “ The scourge of France !
The Talbot so much fear'd abroad.
That with his name the mothers still'd their babes."
John Talbot was the second son of Richard Talbot, by Ankaret le Strange, and was
born about the year 1380. He married Maud, the daughter of Thomas Nevill, Lord
Furnival ; and soon after the accession of Henry the Fifth to the Crown we find him
deputed Lieutenant of Ireland, by the title of Sir John Talbot, Lord Furnival. In 1417
he was one of the leaders in that great armament of 25,000, men, with which the King in
person, attended by many nobles of the land, passed the seas, landed in Normandy, and
laid siege to Caen. In 1428, the Duke of Bedford being Regent in France, he was
with the Earls of Salisbury and Suffolk at the siege of Orleans, where the Earl of Salis¬
bury was slain by a cannon shot while he was looking through the iron-gratings of an
oriel window. In the following year, the siege of Orleans was raised by the celebrated
Joan of Arc, styled for her fanatical pretensions La Pucelle dc Dieu. This gave a tem¬
porary turn of success for the French cause ; and Talbot, retreating before a superior
force, was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Patry. He was ransomed about
four years after for a large sum of money, and the enlargement of Ambrose de Lore, a
French officer of high repute ; and he immediately resumed and continued his military
exploits in the French territory, with the most active valour, and commensurate success.
In 1441, by the King’s letters patent, dated 20th March, he was created Earl of
Shrewsbury. In 1444 he was again Lieutenant of Ireland. His honours were increased
by the dignity of Earl of Waterford. Sir John Talbot, his son, was also constituted
Baron Lisle.
The English cause declining in France, the Earl of Shrewsbury was appointed Lieu¬
tenant of Aquitaine, and it was resolved that he should attempt the recovery of that
province. In 1453, he diligently superintended the fitting out of an armament, with
which he set sail, and landed in the peninsula of Medoc, on the coast of Gascoigne.
He took the strong town of Fronsac, and advanced to Bordeaux, which the citizens
yielded to him by a concerted plan, unknown to the French garrison, who were taken
by surprise. The Earl of Shrewsbury, having established himself in Bordeaux, applied
himself to the reduction of the strong places in the neighbourhood, and, among others,
took the castle of Chastillon, in Perigord, in which he placed a garrison.
95
The King of France assembled an army of 22,000 men, and divided them into two
bodies, one of which he committed to the Comte de Clermont, directing him to march
upon Bordeaux. Of the other he retained the command himself, and despatched two
Marshals of France, with 1,800 men-at-arms, with their proportionate number of
archers, making together 7,200 men, to the siege of Chastillon, before which place they
posted themselves in a strongly-entrenched camp. The experienced Earl of Shrewsbury,
seeing the danger of being hemmed in between two armies, resolved to engage them in
detail, and promptly marched to the relief of Chastillon, driving a strong advanced de¬
tachment of the French before him.
The French had conveyed to the siege of Chastillon the whole royal park of artillery,
under command of the Chevalier Jean Bureau, the Master of the Artillery. Seven hun¬
dred labourers attended him to place the guns and bombards, and construct field-works.
The French drew these engines of destruction within the trenches of their camp, loaded,
and pointed them towards the quarter from which their enemy was advancing. The
venerable Earl of Shrewsbury, then eighty-seven vears of age, mounted on an easy
hackney, accompanied by Lord Lisle, bis son, Lord Moleyns, and eight hundred horse,
approached the enemy’s post before the dawn of the 7th of July, 14.33. lie halted for
the infantry in his rear, about four thousand, to come up, and ordered a pipe of wine to
be broached to refresh his companions, fatigued with the weight of their armour and a
rapid march. The French retired with affected precipitation within their intrenched
post. The veteran Shrewsbury ordered his lances to dismount, and carry the place at
once by storm. St. George’s banner, the royal banner of England, the banner of the
Trinity, his own, and those of his noble companions, were advanced. The storming-
party marched forward with determined resolve to the entrance of the camp, — when
on a sudden the death-precursive suspense was broken by the vivid flash from dense
and rolling columns of grey smoke, the thunder-peal, and bolts resistless (ploughing up
the ground, and sweeping all opposition from its surface) from the three hundred
pieces of artillery, with which the lines appeared, on the instant, as by some enchant¬
ment, to be bristled.
The old Chronicles relate an affecting scene between the elder Talbot and Lord Lisle
his son. They say, the net into which lie had been drawn did not escape his experienced
eye, and he counselled his son to a retreat, as he was but a young soldier, stranger to
the honours of the field, while for him to turn his back would not only stain all his
former laurels, but fill his companions in arms with dismay and despair. The son of
Talbot, both in lineage and heroic soul, rejected at once this counsel, and they fell
together. Thus Shakspeare:
“Thou antic. Death! who laugh'st us here to scorn.
Anon from thy insulting tyranny
Two Talbots, winged, through the lither sky,
In thy despite shall scape mortality."
The particulars of the elder Talbot’s end may be gathered from Hall and Monstrelet.
A ball from a culverin killed the hobby on which he rode, and as he lay extended on
the ground in the weakness of age, some base and cowardly hand shot him through the
thigh with a liand-gun. He died on the field. His body was conveyed to England, to
96
liis manor of Whitchurch, in Shropshire, where it was buried in the parish church under
a monument erected in the chancel, with this epitaph:
“ Orate pro anima prfenobilis domini, domini Johannis Talbot, quondam comitis Salopian, domini Furnivall,
domini Verdon, domini Strange de Blackmere, et Mareschalli Francias, qui obiit in bello apud Burdeux, vii<*
Julii, M.CCCCLIII."
Talbot, after the death of Maud, whom we have mentioned, married a second wife,
Margaret, eldest daughter and coheiress of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. She
survived till the year 1468, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral.
Speed tells us that, with characteristic bluntness, Talbot had caused these words to be
engraven on the blade of his sword: “SumTalboti. Pro vincere inimicos meos.’1 A
motto which it was the purpose of his life to verify in his country's cause. A profile
and front view of his effigy, which has been sadly mutilated, are given. The face, as far
as wre can judge from its fractured condition, possessed fine character. This may be
inferred from the front view ; the wrinkled forehead and sunk cheek of age are ably
expressed by the sculptor. The Earl wears the mantle of the Garter, of which he was
a knight. The tassets of his armour and cuisses are fluted. The greaves are broken
away. His feet rest upon a couchant talbot, or hound.*
* The history plays are generally very faithful versions of our national Annals. In the first part of the history
play of Henry VI. a romantic scene is introduced between Talbot and the Countess of Armagnac, who invites
him to her Castle as a visitor, in order to entrap him, and then declares, with many taunts, he is her prisoner.
(Sec Henry VI. Part I.) Talbot laughs at this announcement, tells her she has but a small portion of Talbot
in her power, his sinews are not there, winds the bugle by his side, his men appear, and the tables are turned
on the lady. We have not found the authority for this scene, but there is little doubt but in history or tradi¬
tion it had some real existence.
Ixotirrt ?(.oi6 Joimgriforti.
Was descended from an ancient Wiltshire family. lie was the son and heir of Walter
Lord Hungerford by his wife Catherine, and was born about the year 1401). Ilis father
(distinguished by his military services in the reigns of Henry the Fourth and Fifth) was
one of the executors of the last-mentioned monarch, and under Henry the Sixth Captain
of the Castle of Cherbourg, Steward of the Royal Household, and Treasurer of the Exche¬
quer. He died in 144!), when Robert, his eldest son, the subject of this notice, succeeded
him in his estates. Robert served during the lifetime of his father in the wars in France,
under John Duke of Bedford; and in 1453 was in that expedition into Guienne which
proved so fatal to Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury and his son the Lord Lisle. Robert Lord
Hungcrford’s son* by his wife, Margaret, daughter of Lord Botreaux, accompanied him,
and was taken prisoner in the disastrous affair at C'hastillon, which, under the head of
Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury, we have already detailed. Lord Hungerford died 22d April,
145!), and directed by his last will that he should be buried near the altar of St. Osmund,
in the cathedral church of Salisbury, where his father had founded a chantry, and where
his own widow, Margaret, also established another.
In 1789, during the repairs and alterations which took place in the cathedral, his body
was removed from its original resting-place into the nave of the church. His remains
were found deposited in a wooden coffin, lying above the level of the floor. The skele¬
ton was nearly entire, and measured in length five feet five inches. From Dodsworth’s
account,')- it would appear that he had been placed in his coffin in the same attitude in
which the effigy appears on his tomb. The costume of Lord Hungerford presents a
fine example of plate armour. The surcoat, or tabard, began now to be much disused,
the fine effect of the metallic splendour of the steel being appreciated. The surface of
the suit is now elaborately fluted, or channelled. Lord Hungerford wears a rich hip-
girdle, and the badge of SS. or Souverayne, devised by Henry the Fourth, and adopted
by the monarchs of his line. At his feet is a hound, with a collar and leash.
Details. Plate I. 1 . The effigy as originally painted. 2. Collar of SS. and pendant jewell enlarged. 3. Lace
on the vambrace. 4. Details of the hip-girdle. 5. One of the laces of the elbow-pieces.
Plate II. Profile. Lace of the dagger, straps with embossed mountings attaching the tassets. Scabbard,
and mountings of the dagger.
* This son was styled the Lord Moleyns, in right of his wife. He remained prisoner in France upwards of
seven years. Dugdale has detailed the curious items of the “ vast charges " his mother, Margaret, incurred
to support him and his family during his captivity, to pay his debts, previously contracted, and to procure his
ransom. These charges amounted in the aggregate to nearly 20,000/. of which the sum for the ransom was
7,690/. See Baronage, Vol. II. p. 209.
t Historical Account of Salisbury Cathedral, p. 196.
98
i?tf 3ToI) it Crash?, a Its |)IQ 2.asi» aSnrs.
11 18 “ rMr eXC‘,'’t'°" f° th0 ^ated in this work, consisting chiefly of
ropl personages, potent feudatories of the crown, or renowned military leaders. Sir
John Crosby was an moment grocer and wool-merchant of the city of London. He
accumulated a large fortune by commercial pursuits, in the reigns of Henry the Sixth
and Edward the Fourth. A current tradition, arising perhaps from the passion of the
vulgar for the marvellous, was, that he was a foundling, and derived his name from his
being taken up near one of those public crosses so common formerly in our highways-
hence he was called “ Cross-by." Stow rejects the storv as fabulous* and think, he
might he the son of one John Crosby, a servant of Henry the Fourth, to whom he
granted in 1406 the wardship of Joan, the daughter and heiress of John Jordainc a
wealthy fishmonger, Crosby might have married his ward, and thus established himself
as a person of consequence in the city. Sir John Crosby, whose effigy is here deline¬
ated, was an Alderman of London, and one of the Sheriffs of that city in 1470. I„
1471 lie met Edward the Fourth on his entry into the city, and was knighted. In
the following he was a Commissioner for treating with the Hanje Towns, relative to
some differences in which the Duke of Burgundy was concerned.
He erected for himself a magnificent house near the priory church of Great St.
Helen’s, Bishopsgate.f It was the loftiest structure in the city in his day. Some
apartments of this building arc still standing, the chief of which is its great hall, with its
exquisitely carved oaken roof and embowered oriel. The view of the general design of
this elegant structure is impeded by its being divided in its height by floors, and formed
into a warehouse.^ Sir John Crosby died in 1475, and lies buried in the chapel of the
Holy Ghost, in Great Helen’s church, Bishopsgate, under an altar-tomb, on which is his
own effigy, and that of his first wife, Agnes.
He gave by his will 500 marks towards the repair of the church of Great St. Helen’s,
and large bequests to other ecclesiastical establishments in and near London. Stow says
* “ Survey of London," edit. 1G31, p. 332.
t It was built on the site of certain tenements, and tlieii appurtenances, demised to him in 1400, for the
term of ninety-nine years, by Alice Ashted, Prioress, and the Convent of St. Helen’s, for the annual rent of
1 It. 6s. Stl. being seventeen marks.
| In these all-changing days, when every thing which is connected with our ancient historical existence
seems marked for innovation or destruction, we have heard it rumoured that Crosby-place is to be pulled
down. We trust, however, that the British Government, as in the case of the Hall at Eltham, will interfere to
save it. The stale of the nave of that fine old Christian Temple, St. Saviour's, Southwark, is sufficient disgrace
for London and its suburbs in the intellectual nineteenth century.
.99
that his arms were extant in many parts of St. Helen’s church.* Weever has preserved
the epitaph on his tomb, as follows :
Orate pro animabus Johannis Crosby, Militis, Aid. atque tempore vite Majoris Staple ville Caleis, et Agnetis
uxoris sue, ac Thome, Richardi, Johanni, Margarete, et Johanoe, liberorum ejusdem Johannis Crosby, Militis;
ille ubiit 1475, et ilia 14GG, quorum animabus propilietur Deus.
Details. Plate I. 1. The collar and pendant of the Lady Crosby. <2. The collar and pendant, apparently
an animal, perhaps a ram, of Sir John Crosby.
3 jTCuill nub 3Latn>, in Bvancepctl) Cimvrfj, Dmljnm.
These tire most probably the effigies of Ralph second Earl of Westmorland, and one of
his wives. He was the son of John Nevill (who died in the lifetime of his father,
Ralph, first Earl of Westmorland), by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Holland, Earl of
Kent.
He had two wives ; his first was Elizabeth, widow of Lord Clifford, daughter of that
remarkable historical character Henry Lord Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland,
surnamed, for his promptitude in military emprize, Hotspur. By Elizabeth he had a
son, John, who was slain during his life-time in the battle of Towton. His second wife
was Margaret, daughter of Sir Reginald Cobham, knight. He died in the year 14S4,
the second of the reign of Richard the Third. The remarkable points in these effigies
are the collars which decorate the necks of the figures. The Lancaster badge of SS. is
now discarded, and we find that of York, the white rose in the sun,:*; adopted ; from
which is suspended the white boar, Richard the Third’s device.
Details. Plate 1. 1. Collar of the male figure., composed of the rose en solcil, with a pendant boar, enlarged.
2. Collar of the Lady, suns and roses, with a pendant jewel, enlarged. Cordon of her mantle. 3. Hilt of
the Earl's dagger.
Plate II. Profile of the Earl. Compartments of the hip-girdle.
* Sable, a chevron Ermine between three rams trippant.
•f Funeral Monuments, p. 421.
X The parhelion which appeared in the Heavens at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross occasioned Edward the
Fourth to add the device of the sun to the white rose ; and this assumed omen of success was indeed the occa¬
sion of victory to him at Barnet Field ; for, being embroidered on the coats of his men, (much as we see, at
this day, the crown, &c. on those of the yeomen of the Royal Guard,) and the Earl of Oxford, on the other
side, having either a blazing star, or the silver mullet of his arms, on the jacks of his retainers, indistinctly
seen gleaming through the mists of a spring morning, it was taken by the Earl of Warwick's soldiers for the
badge of the foe, and assailed as such. Oxford, in consequence, suspected treachery in Warwick, and Bed
the field. Warwick's valour could not repair the mistake ; lie was defeated and slain.
William jFits=3lan, Carl of JUunticl.
THIS tomb has been improperly ascribed to Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel;
but it was evidently raised to the memory of his father, the Earl William and his
Countess Joan, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. Such an error
would probably before this have been corrected, were the effigies more accessible;
but they are placed so near the roof of the chantry, in which the tomb is situated,
that it is scarcely possible to see them.
The first circumstance which would have led to the correction of the above error,
is the costume of the figures not being that of Henry the Eighth's time, but the pre¬
vailing dress of Edward IV., and the early part of Henry VII. ; but that circum¬
stance, which most particularly points out the identity of the personages, is the
animals at the feet of these figures, which are the family supporters so placed
according to the custom of the fifteenth century. At the earl’s feet is the well
known White Horse, and at his lady’s a Gryphon ; the latter being the supporter of
the Nevilles, Earls of Salisbury. And it is paramount to conviction in favour of
this opinion, that on the walls of the chapel where this tomb is placed are painted
the very supporters in question, sustaining a banner, on which are emblazoned the
arms of Neville and Fitz-Alan with their quarterings. The monument of Thomas Fitz-
Alan is on the N. side of the Chancel at Arundel, which also contains this tomb.
William succeeded his brother, John Fitz-Alan, Lord Maltravers, in the earldom
of Arundel, his nephew, Humphrey, dying in his minority. Shortly after, 18th
Heury VI., 1440, upon the death of Beatrix, widow of Thomas, Earl of Arundel,
being twenty-three years of age, he did homage for all the lands she held in her
dower. 38th Henry VI. we find him, in consideration of his special services, con¬
stituted justice of all the king’s forests south of Trent. In the following reign,
Edward IV., William was appointed constable of Dover Castle and warden ot
the Cinque Ports, and in 11th Edward IV., was returned to serve the king, in the
custody of that castle for fifteen days, with twenty men at arms, and forty archers
for the suppression of certain rebels then in arms. And the same year William was
one amongst those lords in parliament who made oath to Prince Edward ; but
during the reign of Richard III. lie is said to have absented himself from court. He
died the third year of the reign of Henry VII., 1487, and left issue by his wife Joan,
four sons : Thomas, William, George, and John.
The tomb, placed within a chantry (on the south side of the chancel) of the
richest architecture, consists of two stages in the same taste, and of like material,
Sussex marble; at the West end or the lower stage, sufficient space is left for the
altar, where the service was performed for the souls of the deceased. The figures,
which lie loose upon the tomb, are carved in a softer stone, and possess considerable
merit; the draperies being executed in the angular style of Albert Durer. The earl
is represented in his robes of creation, with a coronet upon his head. The head¬
dress of his countess is remarkable for its splendid decorations, and the singular
manner in which the coronet is introduced upon it:* beneath her surcoat appears
a rich robe wrought with gold, the cuffs are long and turned back from the hands,
which are broken, round her neck is a splendid necklace.
Details: — PI. 2. Fig. 1. The Earl's coronet: — 2. Profile of the ladies head-dress,
with the painting and gilding : — 3. The necklace formed of roses and suns, connected
by oak leaves,! the ornament pendant from it is defaced : — 4 and 5. Girdle and
painting on the robe beneath the surcoat.
* The same head-dress is represented in a very curious portrait at Kensington, of Margaret of Denmark.
Queen of James III., King of Scotland.
f The suns and roses were the cognizances or badges of Edward IV, ; the oak-leaves refer to the cog¬
nizance of the Fitz-Alans.
, -V _ _ _
fofm Dr la |3ole, Bttltc of Suffolk,
aitD Ijia Bucljtss UBltjabctf).
John was the son and heir of that unpopular minister, William tie la Pole, Duke of
Suffolk, who being banished for his political delinquencies, was put to death on the
2d May, 1450, at sea, off Dover, by the master of a Bristol ship.* His mother was
Alice, daughter of Sir Thomas Chaucer, son of the poet of that name, the force of
whose extraordinary genius has secured immortality for his works in spite of then-
obsolete language. He married Elizabeth, second daughter of Richard Duke of York,
by whom he had Sve sons and four daughters ; on account of which alliance Ins bro¬
ther-in-law King Edward, in 1409, restored to him the dignity forfeited by Ins fathers
attainder. He was made Constable of Wallingford Castle, in the first year of the reign
of Henry the Seventh, died in 1491, and was interred with his ancestors in the collegiate
church at Wingfield, in Suffolk. Elizabeth, his Ducliess, was buried at the same place,
and both are commemorated by the splendid effigies before us.
Details. Plate. I. Profile view Of the head Of the Duchess. , . ,
Plate II. 1. Portion of the Duke's coronet, a. One of the metallic loop, attach, ug the cordon of the mantle
of the Garter to cither shoulder. 3. Skirts of the camlet, hilt and guard of the .word, mount, ug. of the
•cvbb.rd Sc 4 Portion of the Garter on the left knee, enlarged. S. One of the .Iraps attach, og the .,
6 HU, or the dagger, or mis.ric.rde, with lace attaching 1, to the hip 7- *.„£*.£**-*
the Duchess’, coronet, enlarged. 9. Part of the metallic loop of the coidon of her m
PtaTnT. "'h Profile view of the left genouilliere, with the Garter. 1. Portion of the .ole. of the solerette,
resling on the lion's mane.
* Whatever the Duke's political offenci
John, written just before the Duke's dept
where nlso will be found, page 39, anotht
s, there is extant an admirable letter of advice from him to his s
rtUre on this fatal voyage. See the Paston Utters, voL I. !'• ■'
■ curious letter, giving a circumstantial account of his death.
130
Cfftsp of a iHontfovt, m Jxtrljention Cfjutrfj.
of l lFeTCC’ “rm0,,r Sh0"'S ,ha* “ is 0f 1,0 than the latter “d
panache °f *
„„ c > , RdUI' xn tllc right liand is a mace, a horseman's
weapon former!, much ,„ «, the left arm supports a ahield, on which trnder TTe
Ih cl h Z j' rPr\M^ ™ hiS (‘he remarkable hea Z
» h c s been noftced under the article of Richard Wellesburnc dc Mon, for,., oZ
— — „
Sim J © win IP K c mi k
Sir JOHN PECHE, the most splendid amongst the gentlemen who figured in
the court of Henry VIII., appears already to have advanced his fortunes in the
reign of Henry VII., during Perkin Warbeck’s unsuccessful rebellion. In the
twelfth of that king’s reign we find him amongst the foremost engaged in opposing
the Cornish men in Kent, which led to their subsequent defeat on Blackheath. At
the coronation of Henry VIII., Stow says, “ the king ordained to wait on his person
“ fiftie gentlemen to be speares, every of them to have an archer, a demilance, and a
“ cistrali, and every speare to have three great horses to be attendant on his person ;
“ of the which band the earle of Essex was lieutenant, and Sir John Pechie captaine,
“ which ordinance continued not long, the charges were so great; for there were
“ none of them, but they aud their horses were apparelled and trapped in cloth of
“ gold, silver, and goldsmith’s worke.”
In 5th Henry VIII., 1513, we still find Sir John Peche employed in military
achievements, accompanying the king as vice governor of the horsemen at the
siege and destruction ofTherouenne. In 1514 he again passed the sea from England
to Calais, and was appointed Lord Deputy of that town ; and the same year, in
company with other nobles and gentlemen he attended to Paris the Lady Mary,
sister to Henry, who was there espoused to the French King. In 1520 Sir John
joined the gallant train of Henry, who exhibited at the celebrated Champ de
Drap dOr, a splendor and magnificence never exceeded in the court of any
English monarch.* 14th Henry VIII., 1522, Sir John Peche terminated an
existence which, as far as it appears connected with his sovereign and public life,
seems to have passed in uninterrupted prosperity. The place of his death is not
specified, but it is probable he was buried beneath the magnificent tomb erected to
his memory at Lullingstone in Kent. Tradition there records the visits of Henry VIII.
to Sir John Peche, and the Tilt-yard, the former scene of courtly splendor, is still
pointed out in front of the castle gates.
The tomb of Sir John Peche, situated on the North side of the chapel attached to
Lullingstone Castle, in a state of high preservation, ranks amongst the finest
specimens of the time in which it was executed. The canopy is richly ornamented
with arms and devices. In the spandrils on the South side are carved the rose
and pomegranate, the badges of Henry V III. and Katherine of Arragon : in various
parts of the tomb the same badges appear, both single and conjoined. In the
spandrils on the North side is seen the Rebus for the name of Peche, formed by
peaches and letters united, which shew that the final vowel of the name was ac¬
cented — Pech-c. The same Rebus is repeated elsewhere on the monument. In the
centre of the canopy on the N. and S. sides are escutcheons, bearing the modern
arms of Peche — a Lion rampant crowned, queue J'orchee, surmounted by the crest
on a wreath of peach branches fruited, a lion's head crowned. Beneath the escutcheon
on the South side, appears the motto of Sir John Peche, JplTSt a fail'?, and in the
same situation, on the N. side, this inscription, Pffl)p lltf fieri fCCtt. most probably
allusive to the tomb having- been made during the lifetime of Sir John, by his order
and direction. The motto is repeated in various places about the monument ; amongst
the heraldic devices is introduced the ancient coat of Peche, a Jess between two chevrons.
The effigy, which lies at the lower part of the tomb, represents the knight,
wearing over his armour a rich emblazoned surcoat, wrought on the border with the
motto and devices of Peche. Beneath the surcoat and plate armour appears the
skirts of a haubergeon, wrought of small plates. TheTasses, which nearly cover
the Cuisses, are formed of almayne rivets. The double-tailed lion crowned, is
placed at the feet of the figure, and not far from it, on the right side, the gauntlets
of the knight.
The arms of Sir John Peche, at the bottom of the first page are taken from a
window in the chapel at Lullingstone.
Details: — Plate I. — Fig. 1. The Gorget: — 2, ;j, and 4, Motto, and Devices on the
Surcoat. Plate II. — Fig. 1. Hilt of the Sword : — 2. Specimen of the plates forming
the Haubergeon.
* At the justs and tournays held at the Champ de Drap d'Or, Hall says, Sir John Peehie, with three
other kuights, attended the king on horseback in his livery, which was white on the right side, and on the
left side gold and russet, both hose and garment.
CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT
PLATES IN THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN,
IS WHICH THE PERIOD OF THE SCULPTURE HAS BEEN CHIEFLY REGARDED.
was issued at intervals in
ind nine of the tenth Num-
r Howlett, and Mr. Charles
(The whole of the Plates arc from Mr. Charles Stothard’s original drawings. The work
twelve Numbers, containing twelve Plates each. All the Effigies in the nine first Numbers,
ber were etched by Mr. C. Stothard himself ; Mr. Robert Stothard, the late Mr. Bartholome-
James Smith, were severally employed in completing the work. Mr. Blure etched one Plate, after the drawing from
the Effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne. The colouring has been executed by Mr. Edward Davis. The Roman numerals affixed
to the different titles of the Plates in this list, show the number in which they appeared. So anxious was Mr. C.
Stothard that the Public should have the benefit of his practical improvement in executing the Plates for his work, that
he etched some of those first issued over again, and circulated them gratis to his Subscribers. The Plates which
he re-etched have this mark f prefixed in the List. Those which they were intended to replace he of course consi¬
dered as cancelled. Mr. Stothard himself furnished but eight descriptions for his etchings, which will be distinguished
by the pages which contain them being without numbers at the bottom.
A front and profile view of the Effigy of Sir Bernard Brocas, who was beheaded
monument in the Chapel of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey), were issue
His further experience in the style of our ancient sculptures, acquired a
subject altogether ; ns he saw that the shield of the figure, bearing a re
perhaps, the authenticity of the Effigy itself, which appeared t
original figure. This reduces the number of Plates from 144 to 14a. .
The expense incident to colouring all the details of the Tablet of Memorial for Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Maine
, » niou („ce piate No. 2 ) precluded Mr. Stothard from publishing it fully illuminated in his Monumental Effigies ;
He contented himself, therefore, with causing the figure only to be coloured for that Work, and published the Tablet of
Geoffrey Plantagenet, and a genera, view of all the Royal Effigies at Fontevraud. as two separate Plates, elaborately
illuminated after the original subjects. These two Plates will be found desirable illustrations to bind up with the Plates
of the Monumental Effigies.]
n 1400 (and for whom there is a
i two of the Plates of his first Number,
s work proceeded, made him cancel this
int lion, was a modern work, and doubted,
o have been executed, rather in a clumsy way, after an
1. Monumental Effigy on the South side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral, Roger Bishop
of Salisbury (no. tv.) . • • • * ' ‘ „ .
2. Geoffrey PlxSTAOENET, E„rl of Maine .nd Anjou, died 1149, from an enamelled
tablet formerly in the churcli of St. Julien at Mans (no. ix.) . * '
3. Monumental Effigy on the South side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral, Jocelyn
Bishop of Salisbury (no. iv.) ..•••••
4. Henry the Second, surnamed Plantagenet, died 1189 (no. viii.)
5. Profile view of the same (no. xii.) • • • *
6. Eleanor de Guienne, Queen of Henry II. from her Effigy at Fontevraud (no. xi.)
7. Profile view of the same (no. xii.) • 4
107
IN THE MOW MENTAL EFFIGIES.
8. Richard the First, surnnmcd Cceur de Lion, (lied 118!), from his Effigy at Fontevraud
<»»• '*•) . • 8
9. Pr ole of the same (no.viii.) . . . . .10
10. Geoffrey de Magnaville, Eaiii. of Essex, in the Temple Church, London (no. hi.) . 13
1 1. King John, died 1216, from his Effigy in the Choir of Worcester Cathedral (no. vi.) . 15
12. Profile of the same (no. vn.) ........ 17
13. Isabella of Angoulesme, the Queen of John, from her Effigy at Fontevraud (no. xii.) . ib.
14. Profile of the same (no. x.) . . . . . . . . ib.
15. Effigy in the Temple Church, London (no. ix.) . . . . . . ib.
16. Berengaria, Queen of Richard Cceur de Lion, from the remains of her tomb in the Abbey
of L’Espun, near Mans (no. ix.) . . . . . . .19
17. Willi \m Long es fee, Earl of Salisbury, son of Henry II. by Fair Rosamond, from his
Monument in the South side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral (no. v.) . .21
18. Profile of the same (no. v.) ........ 22
19. Monumental Effigy in Malvern Abbey Church, Worcestershire (no. vi.) . . 23
20. Effigy of a De L’Isi.e, in Rampton Church, Cambridgeshire (no. v.) . . . ib.
21. Profile of the same (no. v.). . . . . . . . . ib.
22. Monumental Effigy in Gloucester Cathedral, supposed to represent Robert Duke of
Normandy (no. vii.) . . . . . . . . .24
23. Profile of the same (no. x.) . . . . . . . .25
24. Monumental Effigy in Whitworth Church-yard, Durham (no. yiii.) . . .26
25. Profile of the same (no. viix.) . . . . . . . . ib.
26. Effigy in the Temple Church, London, William Marf.schal, the elder, Earl of Pem¬
broke (no. i.) . . . . . . . . .27
27. Profile of die same (no. i.) ........ ib.
28. Monumental Effigy in the Temple Church, London, a figure in episcopal vestments (no. hi.) 28
29. The Boy Bishop on the North side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral (no. iv.) . ib.
30. Monumental Effigy of a Knight Templar in Salisbury Cathedral, William Longespee
the Younger (no. x.) ......... 29
31. King Henry the Third, died 1272, from his Monument in the Chapel of Edward
the Confessor (no. iii.) . . . . . . . . .30
32. Profile of the same (no. iii.) . . . . . . . . ib.
33. Eleanor, Queen of Edward the First, from her Monument in the Chapel of Edward the
Confessor, Westminster Abbey (no. vi.) . . . . . . .31
34. Hugh de Northwold, Bishop of Ely, from his Effigy in the South aisle of Ely Cathe¬
dral, died 1254 (no. xi.) ........ 32
33. Effigies of a Lady and ( hilil, from the Monument in Scurcliff Church, Derbyshire (no. xi.) 33
36. Robert de \ erf., Earl of Oxford, died 1221, from his Effigy on the North side of the
Chancel of Hatfield Broad Oak Church — this monument not of the period of the Earl's
decease (no. vi.) .......... 34
37. Monumental Effigy' in Gosberton Church, Lincolnshire (no. v.) . . . . ib.
38. Robert Ros, died 1227, Temple Church, London — this monument executed long subse¬
quent to his decease (no. i.) . . . . . . .35
39. Monumental Effigy in Hitchendon Church, Bucks, Richard Wellesburne de Mont-
fort (no. viii.) .......... 36
40. Aveline Countess of Lancaster, died 1269, from her Monument in Westminster
Abbey (no. iii.) ......... 37
108
■0
PLATES IN THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES.
I. Sir Robert Shurland, from his Effigy in Minster Church, Kent (no. xi.)
1. Edmund Chouchback, Earl of Lancaster, second son of King Henry III. 1296,
from hisMonument in Westminster Abbey (no. vi.)
I. Profile of the same (no. hi.) ....
'•+ William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, died 1296, from his Tomb in the Chapel
St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey (no. i.)
>.f Profile of the same (no. i.) ....
>. King Edward the Second, from his Monument in Gloucester Cathedral (no,
1. Profile of the same (no. vii.) ....
). Aymer de \ alence, Earl of Pembroke, died 1323, from his Monument in Westm
ster Abbey (no. ii.) ....
>. Profile of the same (no. ii.) .....
I. William de Staunton, died 1326, from his Tomb in Staunton Church, Notts, (no. ix
. From a Brass formerly in Gorleston Church, Suffolk, supposed to have belonged to t
family of Bacon (no. x.) .......
'• Monumental Effigy in Whatton Church, Notts, Sir Richard de Whatton (no. x.)
!. Profile of the same (no. x.) ....
’. Brass in Minster Church, Isle of Slieppy (no. ix.) .....
'. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, second son of King Edward II. died 1334, fro
his Monument in the Chapel of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey (no. hi.)
. Profile of the same (no. iii.) .....
. Sir Robert du Bois, from his Effigy in Ferfield Church, Norfolk (no. x.)
. Sir RocEn de Bois and Lady, Ingham Church, Norfolk (no. xii.]
. Monumental Effigy in Ifield Church, Sussex (no. vii.)
. Sir John Daubeknoun, from an enamelled Brass in Stoke Dabcmoun Church, Surre
(no. viii.)
. Monumental Effigy in the Chancel of Ash Church, Kent (no. ii.)
. Profile of the same (
. Sir Roger df. Kerdeston, died 1337, from his Tomb in Reepham Church, Norfol
(no- >*.) .
, Profile of the same (no. ix.)
Figures on the Tomb of Sir Roger de Kerdeston (no. ix )
. Sir Oliver Ingham, died 1343, from his Monument on the North side of the Chancel o
Ingham Church, Norfolk (no. iv.) ....
, Profile of the same (no. iv.)
From a Brass in Ingham Church, Norfolk, Sir Miles Stapleton and his Lady (no. x.)
William of Hatfield, second son of King Edward the Third, from his Effigy in Yor
Cathedral (no. viii.) .
Profile of the same (no. viii.) .....
Effigy of a Blanchfiiont, in Alvechurch, Worcestershire (no. viii.)
Profile of the same (no. viii.) ....
Monumental Effigy in the Abbey Church of Tewkesbury (no. vii.)
Profile of the same (no. vii.) ....
Sir Humphrey Littlebury, from his Monument at the west end of Holbeaeh Church
Lincolnshire (no. iv.)
Profile of the same (no. iv.)
Sir Thomas Cawne, in Ightham Church, Kent (no. x.)
E MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES.
\ Tour, Children of Edward Ill.
i.) .
1 the Clmpel
. th
66
Tomb in the Chapel of the Holy
To face the first page of the description.
To face the last page of the description,
the south side of the Lady Chapel, Undercroft of
, from his Monument
I.)
78. Effigy in Staiiulrop Church, Durham (no. ix.)
79. William of Windsor, and Blanch ni
of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey (:
80. Profile of William of Windsor (no. J.)
81. Profile of Blanch de la Tour (no. i.) ...•••
82. John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, died 1318, from his Monument
south aisle of Canterbury Cathedral (no. ii.) •
83. King Edward the Third, died 1337, from his Monument in the Chapel of Edward th
Confessor, Westminster Abbey (no. iii.)
84. Profile of the same (no. hi.)
85. fEowARn THE Black Prince, died 1376, frc
Trinity, Canterbury Cathedral (no. ii.)
86. Profile of the same (no. n.)
87. Joan Burwaschs, Lady Mohu
Canterbury Cathedral (no. ii.) . . ,
88. Profile of the same (no. ii.)
89. Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland, and his t
Staindrop Church, Durham (no. xii.) •
90. Profile of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland (no. xii.) .
91. Profile of one of the Wives of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland (
92. Monumental Effigy in W ingfield Church, Norfolk (no. iv.)
93. Profile of the same (no. v.) •
94. John Lord Montacttk, from his monument on the south side of the Nave of Salisbur
Cathedral (no. v )
95. Profile of the same (no. iv.)
96. Sir Guy Bryan, died 1391, from his Monument in the Abbey Church of Tewkesbury
(no. viii.) .........
97. Profile of the same (no. vhi.) • ••••••
98.1 Sir Hugh Calveley, from his Monument in Bunbury Church, Cheshire (no. vi.)
99. Profile of the same (no. vi.) .......
100. A Basset and Lady, at Atherington, Devon (no. xii.) ....
101. Monumental Effigy in Willoughby Church, Notts (no. ix.)
102. Henry the Fourth, and his Queen, Joan of Navarre, in the Chapel of St. Thom;
Becket, Canterbury Cathedral (no. iii.) ......
103. Profile of Henry the Fourth (no. ii.) ......
104. Profile of Joan of Navarre (no. ii.) ......
liij. Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess Beatrice, from their Mon
ment in the Church at Arundel (no. vii.) .....
106. Profile of Thomas Earl of Arundel, died 1415, (no. vn.)
107. Michael df. la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, and his Countess Catherine, from their Mon
ment on the south side of Wingfield Church, Suffolk (no. v.)
108. Profile of Michael Earl of Suffolk, died at the siege of Harfleur, A. D. 1415 (no. v.)
109. Profile of Catherine Countess of Suffolk (no. v.) .....
110. Effigies lettered, “ Supposed to be Sir Robert Grushill and his Lady” (no. xii.)
111. Profile view of the male Effigy lettered, “ Supposed of Sir Robert Grushill” (no. xii.)
112. Sir Edmund de Thorpf. and Lady, in Ashwell Thorp Church, Norfolk (no. xi.)
113. Second Plate, fully coloured, of the same ....••
ib.
PLATES IN THE MONUMENTAL EFEIGI
122.
128.
124.
125.
128.
129.
■ "2c aiT (»bbot °r *“ i«», f„m „onumeM
the Chapel of St. John the Baptist, Westminster Abbey (no. hi.)
■ 1 rofile of tlie same (no. iii.)
From enamelled Plate In Amberley Church, Sussex, Jon* v„ ')
,™ DUCHES; " Y°"' dirf »23- C1“P'l »f St- Nicholas, Westminster Ab
Profile of the same (no. i.)
JThr,;r“”L “r An'"“'-’ <“ 1«*. from his Monument on the north s
ot the Chancel of Arundel Church (no. v„.)
Profile of the same (no. vii.)
R™ sB,EMCH“n Wm° * 1439’ *“» Monument in the La
t-stiapel, St. Mary s Church, Warwick (no. vi.)
Profile of the same, sword depending from left side (no.
Second Profile of the same, right side (no. xii.)
Back view of the same (no. vi.)
F(m“ J""*’ n“,e, rou"11 the T”'> "f Richard Beauchamp, Fmrl of Warwi
The same (mourners, female) no. xii.
John Talbot, the great Paul of Shrewsbury, died 1453,
church, Shropshire (no. vi.)
Profile of the same (no. vi.)
. Robert Loan IlnnoEnroRn, died 1155, from his Monument on the
JNave of Salisbury Cathedral (no. iv.)
. Profile of the same (no. iv.)
r,°m their Mon“m“t in Great St. Helen's Church, Londo
Profile of Sir John Crosby (no. xi.)
Profile of Lady Crosby (no. xi.)
A Nevili. and Lady, (Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorl
betii,) in Brancepeth Church, Durham (no.xii.)
Profile of the Earl (no. x.)
M^lliam Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess, in A
1 rofile of William Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel (no. vmi.)
Jr ])UKE OF •SuFF0LK- and his Duchess Elizabe'
Wingfield Church, Suffolk (no. v.)
Painting on the same (no. v.)
Profile of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (no. iv.)
Effinp- of a Montfort, in Hitchendon Church, Bucks (no. xi.)
Vma> f,'“m llis M™'»»ent in Lullingstone Church, Kent (uo.'xt.) . . ]05
, from his Effigy at Wh
south side of t
), and his Countess Ei.iz
rundel Church (no. xi.
h, sister to Edward IV
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE INTRODUCTION
MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Fuontispif.ce. The Monumental Effigies rescued from Time, designed by Thomas Stothavd
Esq. R.A. etched by C. A. Stothard, F.S.A.
Title FOB mi Introduction \m- descbiptions, &c. The Wood-cuts wliich surround this
page were designed by the late Mr. C. Stothard himself. The armorial shields are copied from
those on the wall of the South Aisle of Westminster Abbey, and are the bearings of the Barons who
contributed to the work or building of the present Abbey Church, in the time of Henry the Third.
The inscriptions, in the uncial character, are to be read thus :
nicHAnnus : u : cornubue * - hexricus dr . iiastinges - rogerus : moon - robertcs : nr. : verb
—JOANNES : D : WARRENNE— R1CHARDUS : DE : CLARE— SIMON : DE : MONTEEORTJ— Gl 1 1 ■ DB : PORTIBUS.
Portrait of the late Charles Alfred Stothard, F.S.A. engraved by Cooper, after a miniature
by Chalon ; to face the Introduction.
View of the Lid of the Stone-coffin of Matilda Queen of William the Conqueror. Etched, after
Mr. Stothard’s original drawing, by his brother, Mr. Robert Stothard. See Introduction, p. 3.
VIGNETTES.
General View of the Knights Templar in the Temple Church. Etched by Mr. Robert Stothard.
Elevation of the Tomb of Queen Berengaria.
Elevation of the Tomb of W'illiam de Valence, Earl of Pembroke; with \ lews of the ena¬
melled Escutcheons thereon, coloured and enlarged.
Elevation of the Tomb of Sir Robert Shurland. Etched, after Mr. C. Stothard’s original drawing,
by Mr. John Swaine, junior.
Elevation of the Tomb of Edward the Black Prince ; enamelled Escutcheons thereon, coloured
and enlarged. The Labels, bearing the mottoes, “ Ujoumout," " 3Ict) Diene," enlarged.
Chaperon and Crest, Shield, Sword-sheath, Gauntlets, Helmet, and gamboised Surcoat of Edward
the Black Prince, suspended over his Tomb in Canterbury Cathedral.
Elevation of the Tomb of Sir Guy Bryan.
Elevation of the Tomb of Sir John Peciie or Peciiy.
Rebus (a branch of a peach-tree with the fruit) and Armorial Shield of Peciiy, from painted glass
in the window of Lullingstone Church.
112
orig. perhaps for 11 Duniimis Cornuhiie."
UST OF MRS. BRAY'S (LATE MRS. STOTHAHD'S) WORKS.
. www , oulduion ana u
and Smith and Elder, CornhiU, London.
Y ULAU.1S ana uenti.f.y, New Burlin
tor a. >i,h *«» ,.f Mr., a,.,: „ mMmim ,, ,M
Re.™, «,j a, r^,di„, nu of ' *
" Mixing and instructive fictions, see the
MEMOIRS of the late C. A. STOTHARD, Esq. FAS Price Is,
r p““ or
_ _
The FSTOSTANT13 ’ t". “ff 3 •*. M» H. 1 1.. M.
R .
he TALBA , „r, Moo, of Poriog.l , « Eooame,, ln a Pr,„
Preparing for the Press, by the
WARLEIGH ; a Second Legend of Devon, in 3 vols.
To be had also of Mrs. UnA,
e Author,
■ 1. Rodney Buildings, New Kent Bond, or of Messrs Apr,, l>, l „ „
_ , . - - »— v* *<«**.
C 15 co oured Elate of the enamelled TABLET OF GEOFFRPV m it ,
4 . . d'y . * . . . . the ROYAL EFFIGIES AT mmemSm’a
A. Stothabd, Esq. F.S.A. Price II. 15,. rumRVRALD, the last Work of the late V.
Also, to be had of Messrs. Nichols, 25, Parliament % tree / , „
HISTORICAL NOTICES of, he COLLECIATE CHURf-H & Ww.fc,
LONDON, rounded o„ „d . ,w m " AKY ST- MARTIN LE GRAND,
foundation, and generally with ancient Coelome and eminent p *’ °Cail-v "ilh th[1 Hietory of the
SANCTUARY, By ALFRED JOHN KEMPE, F.S.A - •"> kind, of
. lllnstrated with Engravings. Price 10s. Gd. boards.
,0HN BOW VKK s 1 1 HOLS AND SON
PARLIAMENT STREET, WESTMINSTER. ’
7<'v ^
MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN
Alvechurch, Worcester, Effigy in
Amberley Church, Sussex, Enamelled Plate
Arundel, Thomas, Earl of, and hifi Countess
Arundel, John, Earl of
Arundel, William, Earl of, and his Countess
Arundel Church, Effigies of the Fitz-Alans
Ash Church, Kent, Effigy in
Ashwelthorpe Church, Norfolk, Effigy in .
Athcrington, Devon, a Basset and Lady at .
Aveline, Countess of Lancaster
Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke
Bacon, Brass of a, in Gorleston Church, Suffolk
Basset and Lady, at Athcrington, Devon .
Beauchamp, Richard, Earl of Warwick
Berengaria, Queen of Richard Cccur de Lion. Elevation of her Tomb, V
Blanche de la Tour. See William of Windsor.
Blanchfront, Effigy of a, at Alvechurch, Worcester
Boy Bishop .....
Brancepeth Church, Durham. Ralph Neville
Brocas, Sir Bernard, (described in the Advertisement to th
Bryan, Sir Guy, Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette .
Bucks. See Hitchenden.
Bunbury Church, Monument of Sir Hugh Calveley
Burwaschs, Joan, Lady Mohun
Caen, Effigy of Matilda, Queen of William the Conqueror
Calveley, Sir Hugh ....
Cambridge. See Ely and Rampton Church.
Canterbury, John Stratford, Archbishop of .
Canterbury Cathedral, Effigies in, viz. John Stratford,
Burwaschs, Edward IV. and his Queen.
Cawne, Sir Thomas •
Cheshire. See Bunbury Church.
Colchester, William de, Abbot of Westminster
Cornwall, John of Eltham, Earl of
Crosby, Sir John and Lady
D'Abemoun, Sir John ....
De Bailul, Jocelyn . . • • •
De la Pole. See Suffolk.
De’Lisle, Effigy of a
Derbyshire. See Scardiffe.
Devonshire. See Atheririgton.
Du Bois, Sir Robert •
Du Bois, Sir Roger and Lady ....
Durham. See Staindrop, Brancepeth Church, and Whitworth
Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster . . . . . . . 42, 43
Edward the Black Prince, Plate 85, 86. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette. His Chaperon
and Crest, Shield, &c. Vignette.
Edward II. ... ...... 46, 47
Edward III. . • • • ■ • . 83, 84
Eleanor do Guienne, Queen of Henry II. . . . . . 6, 7
Eleanor, Queen of Edward I. ....... 33
Elthani, Jolm of, Earl of Cornwall . . . . . ■ . 55, 56
Ely, Hugh de Northwold, Bishop of, from his ElTigy in Ely Cathedral . . 34
Essex. See Hatfield.
Essex, Geoffrey de Magnaville, Earl of . . . . . 10
Ferfield Church, Norfolk, Effigy of Sir Robert Du Bois ..... 57
Fitz- Alan, Thomas, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess . . . 105, 106
Fitz-Alan, Jolm, Earl of Arundel . . . ■ • • . 119, 120
Fitz-Alan, William, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess .... 136, 137
Fontevraud, Effigies at, viz. Henry II. Plate 4, 5. Eleanor de Guienne, Plate 6, 7.
Richard I. Plate 8, 9. Isabella d’Angoulesmc, Plate 13, 14.
Geoffrey de Magnaville, Earl of Essex . . . . . 10
Gloucester. See Tewkesbury.
Gloucester Cathedral, Effigy of Robert Duke of Normandy . . . . 22, 23
Gorleston Church, Suffolk, A' Bacon in . . . . . .51
Gosberton Church, Effigy in ........ 37
Great St. Helen’s Church, Sir Jolm Crosby and Lady . . 131, 132, 133
Grushill, Sir Robert and his Lady . . . . 110, 111
Hatfield Broad Oak Church, Effigy of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford . . .36
Hatfield, William of, second Son of Edward III. ...... 69, 70
Henry II. sumamed Plantagenet, Plate 4, 5. His Queen, 6, 7.
Henry III. . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32
Henry IV. and his Queen, Joan of Navarre . . . . .102, 103, 104
Hitchenden Church, Bucks, Richard Wellysburne de Montford, Plate 39. Another of the
family of Montford, Plate 141.
Holbeach Church, Lincoln, Effigy in . . . . . . . 75, 76
Holy Trinity, Chapel of the, Canterbury, Edward the Black Prince . . .85, 86
Hoveringham Church, Notts, Effigy in ...... 110, 111
Ifield Chinch, Sussex, Effigy in ........ 59
Ightham Church, Kent, Effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne ..... 77
Ingham Church, Norfolk, Effigies at, viz. Sir Roger Du Bois and Lady, Plate 58. Sir Oliver
Ingham, Plate 66, 67. Sir Miles Stapleton and Lady, Plate 68.
Ingham, Sir Oliver . . . . . . . . . 66, 67
Isabella of Angoulesme, Queen of King Jolm . . . . . 13, 14
Joan of Navarre. See Henry IV.
Jocelyn de Bailul, Bishop of Salisbury ....... 3
John, King . . . . .11,12
Jolm of Eltliam, Earl of Cornwall . . . . . . . 55, 56
John de Ifield, Sir .......... 59
John d'Abemoun, Sir ........ 60
Kent. See Minster Church, Ash Chinch, Ightham Church, Canterbury and Lullingstone
Church.
Kerdeston, Sir Roger de . . . . . .63, 64, 65
Knights Templars, Vignette.
Lady and Child, Scarcliffe Church, Derby ....... 35
Lady Chapel, Canterbury Cathedral, Effigy in . . . . .87, 88
Lancaster, Aveline, Countess of ........ 40
Lancaster, Edmund Crouchback, Earl of . . . . . . . 42, 43
Laverick, Sir John .......... 61
Brass belonging to the
MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN.
L Espan, Abbey of, Effigy of Queen Berengaria
Lincolnshire. See Gosberton and Holbeacli Church.
Littlebury, Sir Humphrey ......
London. See Temple Church, and Great St. Helen’s Church.
Longespee, William, Earl of Salisbury ....
Longespee, William, the Younger .....
Lullingstone Church, Effigy of Sir John Peche
Malvern Abbey, Effigy at .
Mans, in Normandy, Effigy at, Geoffrey Plantagenct
Mareschal, William, Earl of Pembroke ....
Matilda, Queen of William the Conqueror ....
Minster Church, Kent, Effigy of Sir Robert Shurland, Plate 41
family of Northwood, Plate 54.
Moliun. See Burwaschs.
Montacute, John, Lord .........
Montford, Richard W ellysbume de, Plate 39. Another of the family of Montford, Plate 141.
Mourners round the Tomb of Richard Beauchamp. Male, Plate 125. Female, Plate 126.
Nevill of Raby .......... 78
Neville, Ralph, First Earl of Westmoreland, and his two Wives . . .89, 90, 91
Neville, Ralph, Second Earl of Westmoreland and his Lady . . . 134, 135
Norfolk. See Ferfield Church, Ingham Church, Reepham Church, Winfield Church,
Ashwelthorpe Church.
Normandy, Robert Duke of ........ 22, 23
Northwold, Hugh de, Bishop of Ely ....... 34
Northwood, Brass supposed to belong to the family of ....
Nottinghamsliire. See Whatton Church, Hovcringham Church, Staunton Church,
Willoughby Church.
Oxford, Robert de Yere, Earl of .
Peche, Sir John. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette
Pembroke, William de Valence, Earl of. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette
Pembroke, Aymer de Valence, Earl of
Philippa, Duchess of York. ......
Plantagenet, Geoffrey .......
Plantagenet. See Henry II. ..... -
Pole, De la. See Suffolk.
Rampton Church, Cambridgeshire, Effigy in
Reepham Church, Norfolk, Tomb in
Richard L (sumamed Cceur de Lion)
Robert, Lord Hungerford .
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury .
Ros, Robert
St. Edmund’s Chapel, William of Windsor, and Blanche de la Tour
St. John the Baptist’s Chapel, Effigy of William de Colchester
St. Mary's Church, Warwick, Effigy of Richard Beauchamp
St. Nicholas, Chapel of, Philippa, Duchess of York ....
Salisbury Cathedral, Effigies at, viz. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, Plate 1. Jocelyn,
Bishop of Salisbury, Plate 3. William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury', Plate 17, 18.
The Boy Bishop, Plate 29. John, Lord Montacute, Plate 94, 95. Robert, Lord
Hungerford, Plate 129, 130.
Salisbury, William Longespee, Earl of ••••■•
Scarcliffe Church, Derby, Effigy of Lady and Child •
Shrewsbury, Talbot, Earl of ...•■••
Shropshire. See Whitchurch.
Shurland, Sir Robert. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette .
Staindrop, Durham, Effigies at, viz. A Raby, Plate 78. Neville, Earl of Westmoreland,
Plate 89, 90, 91.
142
44, 45
48, 49
17, 18
. 20, 21
63, 64, 65
, 80, 81
14, 115
23, 124'
17, 18
35
128
108, 109
1I59, 140
Stapleton, Sir Miles and Lady
Staunton, Sir William de .
Staunton Church, Notts, Tomb of Sir William de Staunton
Stoke d’Abernoun Church, Sir John d'Abemoun
Stothard, Charles, a portrait of
Stratford, Jokn, Archbishop of Canterbury
Suffolk. See Gorleston Church, Wingfield Church
Suffolk, Michael, Earl of, and his Countess Catlieri... . ■
Suffolk, John de la Pole, Duke of, and his Duchess Elizabeth, (sister to Edward IV.) 13S,
Surrey. See Stoke d’Abemoun.
Sussex. See Ificld Church, Amberley Church.
Talbot, John, Earl of Shrewsbury . • • ■ * ' ’ 127, 128
Temple Church, London, Effigies in, viz. Knights Templars, Vignette. Geoffrey de
Magnaville, Plate 2. Knight Templar, Plate 15. William Marcschal, Earl of
Pembroke, Plate 26, 27. Monumental Effigy, Plate 28. Robert Ross, Plate 38.
Tewkesbury, Effigy in the Abbey Church of, Plate 73, 74. Sir Guy Bryan, Plate 96, 97.
Thomas a Beckett, Chapel of - • • • - • . 102, 103, 104
Thorpe, Sir Edmund de, and Lady . • • • ■ • • 112, 113
Valence. See Aymer and William de Valence.
Wantley, John
Warwick. See St. Mary's Church.
Warwick, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of . • • • • 121, 122, 123,
Westminster. See Chapel of Edward the Confessor, St. Edmund’s Chapel, St. John the
Baptist’s Chapel, and Chapel of St. Nicholas.
Westminster Abbey, Effigies in, viz. Aveline, Countess of Lancaster, Plate 40. Edmund
Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, Plate 42, 43. Aymer de Valence, Earl of
Pembroke, Plate 48, 40. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, Plate 55,
I lenry III. Plate 3 1 , 32. Edward III. Plate 83, 84. Eleanor, Queen of Edwa
Plate 33. Sir Bernard Brocas, Plate 143, 144.
Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, Earl of. See Neville
Whatton Church, Notts, Effigy in .
Whatton, Sir Richard •
Whitchurch, Shropshire, Effigy of Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury
Whitworth Church-yard, Durham, Effigy in
William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke
William of Hatfield •
Willoughby Church, Notts, Effigy in
Wiltshire. See Salisbury.
Windsor, William of, and Blanche de la Tour
Wingfield, Lord of Letheringham •
Wingfield Church, Effigies in, viz. Lord Wingfield, Plate 92, 93. John de la Pole
Plate 138, 139, 140.
Worcester Cathedral, Effigy of King John ......
Worcestershire. See Malvern and Alvechurch.
56.
89, 90, 91
, 81
, 93
York Cathedral, Effigy in, William of Hatfield
York, Philippa, Duchess of.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11